Crl. Revision No.1757 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1757 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 13, 2011 Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG Punjab for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner stands summoned as an additional accused for facing prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The facts noticing in brief are that there is an enmity between the family of Sahib Ram Chaudhary and the petitioner. A false case was registered under Section 376 IPC by Sahib Ram against Sanjiv Kumar and his bother Manoj and his cousin Gaurav Bansal. This case was ordered to be cancelled and the complaint was got filed by Sahib Ram through the prosecutrix, which was pending in the Court of G.K. Dhir, Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. Sanjiv Kumar, Manoj and Gaurav Bansal obviously came to Bathinda in their Indica Car. Key of the car was lost and Sanjiv Kumar did not take it seriously and started using the second key. They had parked the car outside the Court premises. It is alleged that Sahib Ram allegedly got planted some intoxicants in the dickey Crl. Revision No.1757 of 2010 -2- of their car through a driver Sanjay and Vinod Kumar (petitioner). Once the case for which they have come to the Court was adjourned and they drove the car to Dabwali Road. Enroute they stopped to take some snacks, where also Vinod Kumar (petitioner) came in the Alto Car along with accused ASI Sukhpal Singh, who was in uniform. One more vehicle also came there in which some police officials were present in civil uniform and talked to ASI Sukhpal Singh and all of them apprehended Sanjiv Kumar etc. This party then told Sanjiv & others that they had caused an accident and took them towards Faridkot along with Indica Car. Near lake, ASI Sukhpal Singh stopped the vehicle and asked Sanjiv & others that they were dealing in smack and after taking out one bag from the dickey of their car took out two packets and then handed over one packet to each of the person and then drove them towards Faridkot. When they reached near village Sikhan Wala, ASI Sukhpal Singh stopped the vehicle and handed over these persons to a police party telling them that they were smuggling smack. These persons, however, narrated the actual story. They were, thus, not arrested. Inquiry was conducted by SSP Mansa, Sh. F.R. Farurqui, S.P. (D) Mansa and ASP (City) Bathinda. After recording the statement of various witnesses, it was found that ASI Sukhpal Singh accused took `1 lacs from Sahib Ram as bribe for getting a false case registered against Sanjiv Kumar etc. because Sahib Ram was having a grudge with these persons. Sanjiv Kumar and others were found innocent. Finding also is that Sahib Ram in connivance with driver Sanjay & ASI Sukhpal Singh got implanted the smack in dickey Crl. Revision No.1757 of 2010 -3- of the car of Sanjiv through the petitioner. On the basis of this material, application was moved for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused. The counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the conflicting facts to say that inquiry, which was held has ignored the another inquiry where FIR for abduction as recorded was enquired into and it was found that the allegation of abduction was not made out. The finding regarding abduction has no relevance to the action of ASI Sukhpal Singh in implanting this smack. He had intercepted Sanjiv & others and had then planted the smack. It may not be a case of abduction but allegations of falsely implanting smack are made out though the allegation of abduction may not be there. It may not within the purview of this Court to minutely analyze the evidence. The Court has evidence of witnesses before it and this coupled with the inquiry by the police may raise a reasonable prospect of conviction of the petitioner and he, thus, has been rightly summoned. The material, which is available on record before the Court will satisfy the test that there is possibility or chance of conviction on this basis. Accordingly, the petitioner has rightly been summoned to face prosecution as an additional accused. No case for interference, therefore, is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. December 13, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE