BHARPUR SINGH Vs. BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHARPUR Singh and Jeon Singh have filed this revision petition to challenge the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot dated March 16, 2001 whereby the revision petition of Balwinder Singh was allowed, the order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class dismissing Balwinder Singh's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was set aside and the two petitioners were directed to be summoned to stand trial.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that the case was registered on the basis of FIR lodged by Balwinder Singh. After investigation the two petitioners were kept in column 2. However, before Balwinder Singh's statement was recorded and the case was at the stage of charge an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning the petitioners. The said application was dismissed on May 8, 1995. The complainant filed a second application on September 20, 1995 for summoning the petitioners. That application was dismissed as well by the learned Magistrate on December 23, 1995. It was observed that since an earlier application had been dismissed and there was no change in circumstances, the second application also deserved to be dismissed. Against the said order Balwinder Singh filed a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot who allowed the petition and summoned the present petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Petition 1169 of 1997 before this Court, which was allowed on January 31, 1997 and directions were given to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to dispose of the revision petition after giving a notice to the petitioners. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners did not receive any notice and were proceeded ex-parte, therefore, they filed an application for getting the ex-prate order set aside, which was allowed but ultimately on March 16, 2001 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepted the revision and ordered that the petitioners should stand trial. The petitioners have challenged the said order by filing this revision petition.

(3.) A perusal of the first order dated May 8, 1995 would show that it was passed when the case was fixed for framing of charge. At that stage the learned Magistrate was of the view that some evidence should be recorded before persons mentioned in column 2 are summoned as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the application was dismissed. A perusal of the order dated December 23, 1995 would show that the learned Magistrate had refrained from summoning the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. because the complainant had not been cross-examined and the application was found to be premature. This order was revised by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide the impugned order. The Court had come to the conclusion that the only procedure to be followed by the court was to give an opportunity to the defence to cross-examine the witnesses and when proper opportunity had been given it showed that the evidence had been properly recorded, the accused could be summoned.