In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-4233 of 2009 Date of Decision:March 17, 2009 Naterpal ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Mohit Garg,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Ashok Kumar Jindal, AAG, Haryana Mr.S.K.Yadav, Advocate, for complainant *** SABINA, J. Naterpal-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short- “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing orders dated 22.10.2007 and 21.1.2009 (Annexure P-1 and P-2 respectively) whereby the petitioner has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. At the time of presentation of the challan, name of the petitioner was kept in column No. 2 as he was found innocent. Allegation against the petitioner levelled in the FIR is that he had inflicted a lathi blow on the right shoulder of the complainant. Prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner to face trial after the statement of the complainant was Crl. Misc. No. M-4233 of 2009 -2- recorded during trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the FIR, it was alleged that the petitioner had inflicted injury on the right shoulder of the complainant whereas while appearing in the witness box, petitioner had deposed that he gave a lathi blow on the right hand of the complainant. Since the complainant had made material improvements while appearing in the witness box, no reliance can be placed on his testimony and the application filed by the the prosecution is liable to be dismissed. Learned trial court after going through the record observed that the complainant on oath alleged that the petitioner had also inflicted an injury on the person of the complainant. Hence, the petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face trial vide order dated 22.10.2007(Annexure P-1) by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.1.2009 (Annexure P-2) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that there was sufficient material against the petitioner to proceed against him as there were specific allegations against the petitioner that he has caused injury on the person of Yogender PW-1. Both the courts below after considering the material on record and have passed the impugned orders. The same do not call for any interference as they do not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 17, 2009 PARAMJIT