PUNEET MIGLANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda and in terms of which an application preferred by the petitioner herein/complainant for summoning DSP Janak Singh, Inspector Gurdev Singh Bhalla, Head Constable Harjinder Singh and Head Constable Rajwant Singh as additional accused to face trial in FIR No.11 dated 11.09.2013 under Sections 166/385 IPC as also under Sections 7, 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly it may be noticed that FIR No.91 dated 18.12.2012 was registered at Police Station Phul, Bathinda under Sections 420, 406, 457 IPC and in which one Dev Raj Miglani i.e. father of the petitioner was implicated. Allegations were levelled by the present petitioner as also his sister with regard to police officials demanding illegal gratification to save their father, namely, Dev Raj Miglani from torture and to release him. FIR No.11 dated 11.09.2013 came to be registered on such allegations and after completion of investigation Head Constable Kikkar Singh was nominated as accused and is facing trial. Statement of the present petitioner, namely, Puneet Miglani was recorded before the trial Court as PW-1 and in which he specifically named the private respondents herein to be also involved in the matter. Deposition of the petitioner as PW-1 and placed on record at Annexure P-1 contains assertions that on 03.09.2013, the petitioner along with his sister went to the Office of DSP Janak Singh at Bathinda and wherein the other police officials/private respondents were present and whereupon father of the petitioner, namely, Dev Raj Miglani was produced and a sum of Rs.24 lacs was demanded as bribe to save accused Dev Raj.

(3.) It is on the strength of such deposition that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed to summon private respondents as additional accused and which has been declined vide impugned order dated 08.09.2016.