GURJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allowed as prayed for.

(2.) Annexures P-1 to P-7 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

(3.) Mr. G.P.S. Bal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would argue that the petitioners herein have wrongly been summoned to face the trial, as there is nothing on record, which would substantiate the fact of involvement of the petitioners herein in the alleged offence. He vehemently argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the light of the fact that there is enough material available on record to establish that the prosecutrix and Gursewak Singh were well known to each other. It is contended that they have been falsely implicated in the present case being brother and friend of said Gursewak Singh. It is also argued that initially the challan was presented only against said accused Gursewak Singh and not the petitioners herein and after the role of the petitioners herein was investigated, a supplementary challan under Sec. 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was presented qua the petitioners herein, declaring them as innocent. It is submitted that the investigation report was presented, after an application under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecutrix and the same ought to have been taken into account, while allowing the application under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. It is further argued that while allowing the application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C., the trial court has observed that "In view of the aforesaid discussions, supplementary challan presented under Sec. 173(8) Cr.P.C., declaring the accused Gurjinder Singh and Parminder Singh innocent, is not accepted." as such, if the supplementary challan presented under Sec. 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., declaring the petitioners herein as innocent is not accepted, it would not form a part of the court record and they would not be able to rely upon on it at the time of their defence.