AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amrik Singh, the petitioner by way of Criminal Revision No. 2536 of 2010 and Sukhraj Singh and Bhagwant Singh by way of Criminal Revision No. 3401 of 2010 have challenged the order dated 3.8.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Sukhwinder Kaur lodged FIR No. 141 dated 24.7.2006 at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana with the following allegations:

(2.) After due investigation, the police filed challan against Balwant Singh. After framing of charge, Sukhwinder Kaur, the complainant was examined as PW-1 and after recording of her statement, the prosecution applied under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Sukhraj Singh, Bhagwant Singh and Amrik Singh as accused to stand trial along with Balwant Singh. This application has been allowed vide order dated 3.8.2010 vide which all the three have been summoned to stand trial.

(3.) Mr. Rahul Rampal, learned counsel representing Amrik Singh has taken me through the statement of Sukhwinder Singh recorded as PW-1. According to him, this statement is contrary to what is stated by Sukhwinder Kaur, the complainant in her statement made before the police. He has further submitted that the dispute was between the brothers and Amrik Singh is the neighbour who had nothing to do with any of the parties involved in the scuffle. He has further submitted that the impugned order is also very small in which learned Additional Sessions Judge has not recorded his satisfaction, which is required under section 319 Cr.P.C. He has submitted that the power under section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised very sparingly and only when the court concerned is satisfied that some offence has been committed by such person. In this regard, he placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2008 2 RCR(Cri) 200, where it is laid down as under :-