ATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 11.02.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby, the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr. P.C. to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. Briefly, the facts of the case, are that FIR No. 297 dated 30.08.2010 under aforesaid sections was registered on the basis of complaint made by one Jaiveer. After investigation, two accused, namely, Sunil Kumar and Narender were charge sheeted and petitioners were found to be innocent and they were kept in Column No. 2 of the challan. During pendency of the trial, an application under Section 319 Cr. P.C. was moved by one of the accused, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2012. Against order dated 04.04.2012, Criminal Revision No. 1541 of 2012 was filed before this Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2012. Thereafter, in another application moved under Section 319 Cr. P.C., the petitioners have been summoned as additional accused vide order dated 11.02.2013, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned summoning order on the ground that earlier application moved by one of the accused was dismissed and even revision petition was also dismissed by this Court. There was no fresh evidence or statement before the summoning Court and the impugned order amounts to review of earlier order passed on 04.04.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners were found innocent in the investigation as no material/evidence was found against them. No evidence is there to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the learned Summoning Court has not taken into consideration the earlier order passed in the application under Section 319 Cr. P.C. as well as order passed by this Court in revision petition.

(3.) HEARD arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the impugned order.