DARBARI LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by dismissal of application moved under Sec. 319 CrPC for summoning of respondents no.1 to 3, the petitioner-complainant has come up before this Court under Sec. 482 CrPC.

(2.) As per the version of the petitioner-complainant, on 3/1/2009, the respondents Gurdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Lakhwinder Singh had beaten the son of his nephew Kuldeep Saini and therefore, they were summoned at the police station, but the said accused did not turn up at the police station. After coming back from police station, when the petitioner and his son were passing through the village Gurudwara on way to their house, the respondents-accused along with their many accomplices were standing in the street armed with dangs and iron khoncha. On seeing them Gurdev Singh and Natha Pardhan raised lalkara to catch hold of them and kill, as they had given statement against them in the police station. Except Natha Singh, the other accused including the petitioners inflicted injuries upon them. On alarm being raised, their relatives and co-villagers gathered and then, the accused ran away along with their weapons. Thereupon, the petitioner and his son were admitted to hospital. It has been averred that despite specific injuries were attributed to the respondents-accused, but they were kept in column no.2. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 319 CrPC for summoning of respondents as accused, however, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dtd. 29/1/2013. The petitioner challenged the said dismissal order by way of revision petition and the revisionary Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the dismissal order dtd. 29/1/2013 and remanded the matter back to the trial Court to re-decide the application under Sec. 319 CrPC, but the trial Court again dismissed the said application vide order dtd. 7/12/2013. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed revision petition against the order dtd. 7/12/2013 and learned Sessions Judge dismissed the same vide order dtd. 11/11/2014 with the observation that the petitioner kept mum to the act of the police exonerating the respondents-accused and not submitting challan against them. Aggrieved by aforesaid order dtd. 11/11/2014, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.