GURMEET KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition has been preferred by Gurmeet Kaur challenging the order dated 04.06.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial along with other co-accused.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the order, quashing whereof has been prayed by the petitioner in the present petition, summoning the petitioner as an additional accused, is without any application of mind and has been passed in a mechanical manner and in total disregard of the requirement of Section 319 Cr.P.C. He submits that the petitioner has been summoned merely on the basis of a statement made by Yadwinder Singh PW-1, wherein the petitioner has been named in his statement before the trial Court. He submits that in the FIR and in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the name of the petitioner was mentioned, however, after investigation, no challan was presented against her. Even at the stage of framing of charge, no charge was framed against the petitioner and nothing new has come in evidence which would call for exercise of powers by the trial Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He further submits that even the statement of Yadwinder Singh PW1 i.e. the Examination-in-Chief has not yet been completed, what to say about his cross-examination, but the trial Court, on this incomplete statement, has proceeded to summon the petitioner. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and another, 2007(2) RCR(Criminal) 762 : 2007(2) RAJ 534 to contend that before the completion of the statement of the witness, the same could not have been taken into consideration for exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He further submits that powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only after the Court arrives at a satisfaction that there exists possibility that the accused, so summoned, is likely to be convicted. In this case such satisfaction having not been arrived at by the trial Court, the order of summoning is not sustainable. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Rupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2008(4) RCR(Criminal) 235 in support of his contention.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.