Criminal Revision No. 2557 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 2557 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 5.10.2009
Ashok Kumar
.. Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate for
Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned
court below on 19.8.2009, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of Pinki @ Prabhat Kiran as additional
accused was dismissed.
Briefly, the facts are that on account of a dispute between the
families of real brothers, FIR was registered on 20.5.2008, under Sections 148,
149, 323, 325, 307, 506 IPC at Police Station, Khol. It was stated in the FIR that
complainant-Ashok Kumar was caught hold of by his brother Partap Singh and
was beaten by his sons – Inderveer @ Naveen and Sunil Kumar with Dandas in
their hands, with which the complainant was hit on the head and legs. When he fell
down, the ladies including respondent No. 2- Pinki @ Prabhat Kiran, who were
also stated to be present, had also given blows to him. In the statement, which was
got recorded in the court, the petitioner improved his statement and alleged that
when he fell down, Pinki @ Prabhat Kiran gave a Danda blow on his left ear
which resulted in a grievous injury. It was at this stage that application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Pinki @ Prabhat Kiran was filed. The same
having been rejected, the petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the material before
the court was sufficient to summon Pinki @ Prabhat Kiran as additional accused as
there were specific allegations against her in the statement of the petitioner, which
was recorded in the court. The same was even corroborated by the medical
evidence. The learned court below had totally gone wrong in dismissing the
application holding that the material on record was not sufficient to form an
Criminal Revision No. 2557 of 2009 [2]
opinion that there was likelihood of conviction of the person sought to be
summoned.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any
merit in the present petition. The admitted case in the FIR is that the petitioner-
complainant was alone in the fields when he was attacked by the accused party.
There were three male members, namely, Partap Singh, brother of the complainant,
and his two sons, namely, Inderveer @ Naveen and Sunil Kumar. Initially, in the
FIR, it is mentioned that while Partap Singh had caught hold of the complainant-
petitioner, his two sons had hit him with Dandas on head and legs. Only general
allegation was made against the ladies named in the FIR that they had given blows
to the complainant-petitioner. Specific attack on the ear by any of the accused,
what to talk of ladies, was not even alleged. In fact, the complainant-petitioner had
been hit on the left side of his head by one of the other accused. Still further, in his
cross-examination, the complainant-petitioner had admitted that respondent No. 2-
Pinki @ Prabhat Kiran was married about 8 to 10 years back.
Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, no illegality has been
committed by the learned court below in dismissing the application filed by the
petitioner.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal)
Judge
5.10.2009
mk