IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-10985 of 2008 Date of Decision:27.1.2010 Makhan Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and another .... Respondents. CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 7.4.2008 (Annexure P-2) whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 21.1.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar summoning the petitioners as additional accused by allowing the application of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trail for offences under Sections 326/323/452/148 read with Section 149 IPC, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the application of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed on the basis of incomplete examination in chief of the complainant, which is no evidence in the eyes of law and the learned trial court did not record the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned would in all likelihood be convicted. He has further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq 2007(2) RCR (Crl.) 762 to say that it is well settled law that the power to summon additional accused is discretionary but it should be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only when some other evidence has come before the Court and that mere statement of the complainant ipso CRM M-10985 of 2008 -2- facto cannot form the basis of summoning the person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 does not dispute that the application of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed simply on the basis of incomplete examination in chief of the complainant. In view of the above, orders dated 7.4.2008 (Annexure P-2) and 21.1.2008 (Annexure P-1) are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C afresh after recording the complete examination in chief as well as cross examination of the complainant in accordance with law. 27.1.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE