BHIM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Bhim and Virender have filed this revision petition against the order dated 13.11.2013, passed by the trial Court, allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and summoning the petitioners to face the trial. It is mainly stated in this petition that earlier the petitioners were found innocent during investigation and inquiry into the allegations by Crime Branch and report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court. After recording the statements of PW1 Pardeep and PW2 Rakesh (complainant), an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved which was allowed by the trial Court. It is also stated in this petition that the trial Court has erred gravely by not even perusing the statement of PW1 Pardeep, who happens to be brother -in -law of deceased Vijay Pal and an alleged eye witness, who admitted that deceased Vijay Pal was a habitual criminal and he was involved in many cases. It is also stated that the trial Court has erred in law and hence summoned the petitioners.

(2.) AT the time of arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that petitioner Virender has not been named in the FIR and no role has been attributed to him. He is not even named in the statement of PW2 Rakesh, recorded by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that as the petitioners were found innocent during investigation, therefore, no ground for their summoning was made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the person could be summoned only if there was possibility of recording of judgment of conviction against him.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel and have gone through the record.