HARDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been brought by Hardeep Singh, Darshan Singh and Jatinder Singh challenging the order dated 14.8.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby the application of the State under section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed in the case registered by way of FIR No. 68 dated 16.5.2011 at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib for an offence punishable under sections 307, 323, 325, 341, 382, 506, 427, 201 read with section 34 IPC. The police while submitting challan had placed the names of the petitioner in column No. 2. At the trial, after recording the statement of Bhupinder Singh, the complainant as PW-1, the State moved an application under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners which has been allowed vide order dated 14.8.2012 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Navkiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Rajni Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the State. I have gone through the record carefully.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the FIR (Annexure P1) where Bhupinder Singh, the complainant has stated that their car was surrounded by Harjinder Singh and 8/9 unknown persons. According to him, the petitioners are claimed to be from those 8/9 unknown persons. He then drew my attention to the statement of Bhupinder Singh recorded at the trial who has stated in his crossexamination that all the accused were known to him prior to the occurrence. He has submitted that if the petitioners were known to the complainant prior to the occurrence, there was no reason for not naming the petitioners in the FIR. According to him, the statement appearing in the FIR clearly shows that he did not know these 8/9 persons accompanying Harjinder Singh and, therefore, his statement recorded at the trial as PW-1 that he knew all the accused prior to the occurrence is incorrect. He has further submitted that in view of this circumstance, it appears that the learned trial court without applying its mind has summoned the petitioners to stand trial.