Criminal Misc.-M No. 8921 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 8921 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.8.2011 Ajit Pal Singh .. Petitioner v. The State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Darling Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. PBS Goraya, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Reply by way of affidavit of Jagjit Singh Walia, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Attari, District Amritsar (Rural) filed in court is taken on record. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 9.2.2011, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the complainant in the cross-version in FIR No. 77 dated 11.3.2007 for summoning Harpreet Singh Benipal as a witness was rejected. Initially the aforesaid person was summoned as a witness by the prosecution in the cross-version, however, later on the Public Prosecutor filed an application withdrawing his name from the list. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who is complainant in the cross-version in the aforesaid FIR, submitted that Harpreet Singh Benipal, Criminal Misc.-M No. 8921 of 2011 [2] who was Deputy Superintendent of Police at the relevant time, was entrusted with the enquiry. He had gone to the spot, summoned various persons and on verification of the statements made by them, submitted his report regarding the place of occurrence and also declared certain persons innocent. On his report, cross-version under Section 452, 324, 325, 148, 149 IPC was registered against the complainant in the FIR. Once Harpreet Singh Benipal, who was examined as a defence witness in the FIR and he made statement in the court regarding the incident in question, his evidence is relevant for the prosecution in the cross-version as well. Placing reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of M.P. and others, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 267, it is submitted that the learned court below should have exercised the power for summoning Harpreet Singh Benipal as a witness in support of the cross-version. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant submitted that Harpreet Singh Benipal, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, did not prepare any memo on the spot. He never arrested any of the accused nor he prepared any document accompanying the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. He did not record statement of any of the witnesses or prepare the site plan or had taken any article into possession. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Public Prosecutor had rightly withdrawn his name from the list of prosecution witnesses, as he was not relevant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that FIR No. 77 was registered against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC, in which on the statement of the petitioner, cross-version was registered under Sections 452, 324, 325, 148, 149 IPC. The trial of both the cases is being held together. Harpreet Singh Benipal had appeared as a defence witness in the FIR and stated certain facts regarding the incident in question and the enquiry conducted by him, even though he was not the designated Investigating Officer. As the aforesaid witness had appeared before the court as a defence witness in the FIR, his statement would be relevant even in the Criminal Misc.-M No. 8921 of 2011 [3] cross-version got recorded by the petitioner regarding the place of incident and the enquiry conducted by him for the just decision of the case and to bring out the truth. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner for summoning Harpreet Singh Benipal as a witness is allowed. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.8.2011 mk