CHHOTO Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case where the trial of nine accused in the murder case has been stayed on account of the orders made by this Court on 12.10.1994, challenging a patently wrong order of the Criminal Court. The facts of the matter are as under :

(2.) The petitioner, Chhoto daughter of Bachittar Singh lodged FIR No. 82 dated 4.12.1989 in Police Station, Raman against nine persons under Sections 364/436/379/148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. On the completion of the investigation, the police filed a challan under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with respect to the afore mentioned offences and including in addition a charge of murder as well, against five persons, after having found four of them, i.e., Rajinder Singh, Sandhura Singh, Mandir Singh and Gurdip Singh innocent. They were shown in Column No. 2 of the challan. The matter was accordingly committed to the Sessions Court for trial with respect to the five accused whereas the accused named in column No. 2 were discharged by the Magistrate. Before the commencement of the trial, the Public Prosecutor filed an application before the Sessions Judge for summoning the four accused who had been discharged. This application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that as no evidence had yet been recorded, it was not possible to form an opinion on the merits of the application. The charge was thereafter framed and the trial commenced. During her evidence in Court, Chhoto, narrated the facts given in the FIR and categorically stated that Rajinder Singh, Sandhura Singh, Mandir Singh and Gurdip Singh, who had been discharged had also been involved in the incident. An application was thereafter moved by the Public Prosecutor under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning these four persons. This application was rejected by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide his order dated 19.9.1994, primarily on the ground that Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not applicable to the case as the four persons, who had been discharged were accused at the time of the filing of the challan and that on merit also there was no evidence to show their involvement.

(3.) It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.