IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.25142 -M of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 9, 2011 PAVITTAR SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 The petitioner is complainant in FIR No.81 dated 9.12.2008 under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Mullepur. After investigation, challan was presented. Only Surjit Kaur alias Savitri was nominated as an accused to stand trial. Amarjit Kaur, Balwant Singh and Paramjit Singh were kept in column No.2. 2 After recording of statement of PW-1 Pavitar Singh, an application under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed, so as to summon the said three persons. The application has been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dated 2.2.2010 (Annexure P-1). 3 A revision petition was carried by the petitioner directed against order dated 2.2.2010, which has been allowed in Criminal Misc. No.25142 -M of 2010 (O&M) 2 part. Balwant Singh and Paramjit Singh have been directed to be tried as additional accused, while the petition in regard to Amarjit Kaur has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide order dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure P-3). 4 The present petition has been filed against order dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure P-3), on the premise that even Amarjit Kaur needs to be summoned as additional accused. 5 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6 It has been recorded in order (Annexure P-3) that Amarjit Kaur has not been attributed either lalkara or injury on the person of the injured. In such circumstances, there is no reason to summon Amarjit Kaur. 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any illegality in order (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to controvert the reasons recorded by the lower revisional court for not summoning Amarjit Kaur as additional accused. 8 In view of the above, the petition is dismissed in limine. August 9, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?