Allowed

Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2010CRR/2936/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a criminal revision, allowed the petitioner's challenge against his summons to face trial. The court held that Section 319 Cr.P.C. requirements were not met as the petitioner was not named in the FIR or police statement, and the sole basis for his inclusion was his relationship to an accused.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13.08.2009 summoning the petitioner to face trial is set aside.

Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky Vs State of Punjab — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB OF HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

¶4

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2936 OF 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 22.09.2011

¶5

Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

¶11

Present : Mr. G.S.Gill, Advocate with Mr. A.S.Dhindsa, Advocate and Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Vishal Mungal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab

¶13

Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶14

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

¶15

In this revision, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar vide which the petitioner stands summoned to face trial along with other co-accused on an application moved by the complainant-Jaswinder Singh under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶16

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has neither been named in the FIR nor in the supplementary statement dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure P-7) given by the complainantJaswinder Singh before the Superintendent of Police (Detective). He has merely been named by the complainant-Jaswinder Singh only while giving his statement before the trial Court as PW-9 (Annexure P-11). The allegations leveled against the petitioner by the complainant in his

¶17

-2-

¶18

statement before the trial Court are that the petitioner was armed with iron rod and he gave a rod blow hitting complainant-Jaswinder Singh on his back. No injury has been found on the back of the complainantJaswinder Singh as is apparent from his MLR. He contends that the petitioner has been roped in merely because he is brother of Harinder Singh @ Bonny, who is an accused. He contends that the requirement of Section 319 Cr.P.C has not been fulfilled and therefore, the present petition deserved to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar qua the petitioner.

¶19

On the other hand, counsel for the complainant-Jaswinder Singh has contended that the petitioner has been specifically named before the trial Court and is stated to have been armed with an iron rod, which was used to give a blow on the back of the complainant-Jaswinder Singh and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner deserves to be rejected.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.

¶21

Petitioner has neither been named in the FIR nor in the supplementary statement dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure P-7) given by the complainant-Jaswinder Singh before the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Rupnagar. The allegation that the petitioner was armed with an iron rod and had given a blow on the back of the complainantJaswinder Singh is not corroborated by the medical evidence. It appears that the name of the petitioner has been included merely because he happens to be the brother of one of the accused, namely, Harinder Singh @ Bonny. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah Etc. Vs. State of Gujrat and others, 2011(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 852, has held that the extraordinary power conferred on

¶22

-3-

¶23

the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C should be used very sparingly and only if evidence has come on record, which sufficiently establishes that the said person has committed an offence and the Court must be satisfied that the circumstances justify and warrant that such person be tried along with already arraigned accused.

¶24

In view of the above, the requirement of law as contained in Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not fulfilled qua the petitioner and therefore, his summoning by the trial Court vide order dated 13.08.2009 to face trial along with other co-accused is not in accordance with law.

¶25

The present petition is thus allowed. The impugned order dated 13.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar qua the petitioner is hereby set aside.

¶26

22.09.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) adhikari JUDGE

Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakhwinder Singh @ Lucky v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jagdev Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Brijender Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Partap Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Harinder Singh Vs State of Punjab