Crl.M.No.M-13078 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-13078 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: May 11, 2010 Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.D.D.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of impugned order dated 28.8.2009, Annexure P4, passed by learned trial Court whereby summoning of accused -respondents no.2 and 3 has been declined and the impugned order dated 9.3.2010, Annexure P5, passed by learned revisional Court, whereby the order passed by learned trial Court has been affirmed and for further direction to learned trial Court to summon respondents no.2 and 3 to face trial in this case. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. A careful perusal of the file shows that First Information Report, Annexure P1, was got registered against Sukhwinder Singh and respondent nos.2 and 3 for offences under Sections 406/420 IPC. After investigation challan was filed against Sukhwinder Singh only, whereas Harjit Kaur and Manjit Singh were found innocent. Charge was framed against accused Sukhwinder Singh for offences under Sections 406/420 IPC. Three witnesses were examined including the present petitioner, when the application was moved on behalf of the petitioner for summoning respondent nos.2 and 3 as well to face trial alongwith Sukhwinder Singh. Petitioner has placed on record copy of his statement only and has not placed on record copies of statements of other witnesses. A perusal Crl.M.No.M-13078 of 2010 (O&M) -2- of statement of petitioner, Anenxure P3, shows that he has made specific allegations against Sukhwinder Singh for receiving Rs.15,00,000/- from him on three different dates, however, so far as respondent nos.2 and 3 are concerned, only vague allegations have been made against them that when he demanded the money back, they alongwith Sukhwinder Singh raised threats. In the impugned order, Annexure P4, vide which application filed by petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by learned Magistrate, it has been clearly mentioned that PWs 1 and 2 have deposed against Sukhwinder Singh only and they have not raised any allegation against respondent nos.2 and 3 in this petition, who were sought to be summoned to face trial alongwith Sukhwinder Singh. Petitioner filed revision against the said order before learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 9.3.2010, Annexure P5. Learned revisional Court has also specifically mentioned that as per allegations of the complainant, he handed over the money to accused Sukhwinder Singh and there is no evidence against Manjeet Singh and Harjit Kaur to summon them to face trial alongwith Sukhwinder Singh. It has also been mentioned that there are no specific allegations against Manjeet Singh and Harjit Kaur and the allegations are vague in nature. Hence, in view of these facts, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court and learned Additional District Judge dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of respondent nos.2 and 3 to face trial alongwith co-accused Sukhwinder Singh, who is already facing trial. Hence, no case for quashing of orders dated 28.8.2009, Annexure P4, passed by learned trial Court, and 9.3.2010, Annexure P5, passed by learned revisional Court is made out. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. 11.5.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge