Crl. Revision No.2049 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRR No.2049 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 17.8.2009
Baldev Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Pawan Kumar and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. R.S. Modi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajan Gupta, J.
The petitioner has impugned the order dated 15th July, 2009,
passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda,
whereby revision of respondent Mohit Kumar has been allowed and
order dated 14th November, 2008, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Bathinda, summoning him under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has been
set-aside.
According to the counsel, a false complaint was lodged
against the petitioner by respondent No.1 , who is father of respondent
No.2. Resultantly, he has been summoned to face trial. However,
complainant did not complain against respondent No.2, due to which
instant application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. had to be moved by the
petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given
careful thought to the facts of the case.
Crl. Revision No.2049 of 2009 2
The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by
Baldev Singh petitioner alleging that Mohit Kumar was equally liable
for the offence and thus should be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
as a co-accused. This application was allowed by Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Bathinda. The said order was, however, reversed by Additional
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bathinda observing that the order
summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., passed by the
Magistrate was palpably wrong since the complainant has no grievance
against the said accused. The revisional court also observed that the
complainant may even have compounded the offence with the other
accused, thus, there was no ground to summon him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point
out any infirmity with the order passed by the revisional court. It is
clear that the present case is under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act. The complainant has not levelled any allegations
against respondent No.2 nor has he sought his summoning. Before the
trial court, the complainant filed a reply and submitted that petitioner
Baldev Singh was responsible for conduct of business of the company
M/s Arjun Bottling Plant Pvt. Ltd. and cheque in question was issued by
him. He opposed the summoning of Mohit Gupta as additional accused.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a
fit case for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court. The
petitioner, who has been summoned as accused, has filed the instant
application for summoning of one Mohit Gupta stating that he is his
Crl. Revision No.2049 of 2009 3
co-accused. The complainant has opposed this prayer. It appears that
complainant is not interested in arraying respondent No.2 as accused in
the complaint filed by him under Section 138 of the Act.
Under the circumstances, there is no ground to interfere
with the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
August 17, 2009
‘rajpal’