KULDEEP SOOD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allowed as prayed for.

(2.) THE present revision petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 25.04.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which, the revision petition filed by the respondents has been allowed and the order of the trial Court has been set aside and the learned Magistrate has been directed to re -consider the application after recording the statements of Vikram Sood and Sanjiv Kumar. Briefly, the facts of the case are that FIR No. 107 dated 22.10.2007 under Sections 307 /326 /323 /148 /149 IPC was registered at Police Station Banur District Patiala against six persons. After conducting the investigation, the challan was presented only against Gurdeep Ram and Brij Lal and not against Om Parkash, Pritam Chhabra, Shanti Parkash and Raju. However, P.O. proceedings were initiated against Brij Lal and the other accused were put in column No. 2. The charge against Gurdeep Ram was framed after recording the statement of the complainant. Thereafter, an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura on 22.08.2012. Thereafter, the revision petition was filed by the accused persons before the Sessions Judge, Patiala which was allowed on 25.04.2013 and the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura was set aside and a direction was also issued to the trial Court to reconsider the application after recording the statements of Vikram Sood and Sanjiv Kumar and the parties through their counsel were directed to appear before the trial Court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Bhushan Kumar and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another : 2012 (2) RCR (Cri)