Dismissed

Wahid v. Shokeen and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2017CRR/774/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused. The High Court found no illegality in the trial court's order, as evidence did not sufficiently connect the respondents to the offence.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit, upholding the order dismissing the application for summoning additional accused Shokeen, Shodan and Fajjar.

Wahid Vs Shokeen and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

112

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRR No.774 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 20, 2017

Wahid

...Petitioner

VERSUS

Shokeen and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶13

Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against Shokeen and other respondents, challenging the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide which the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainantpetitioner was dismissed.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

¶15

From the record, I find that earlier the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court. That order was challenged before this Court and this Court, set aside that order and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court to decide the application under Section 319 Cr.P.c. by passing well reasoned order after discussing the statement of PW-1 etc.

¶16

Vineet Gulati 2017.04.05 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CRR No.774 of 2017

¶18

-2-

¶19

Now, learned trial Court found that the applicant-complainant wants to summon 15 persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court after discussing the evidence, partly allowed the application and summoned Khalil, Akeel, Salauddin, Jamil, Majid, Ashu, Alli, Rasid, Sakri, Hoshiyar and Mubarik to face trial along with accused already challaned under Sections 148, 323, 324, 302, 341 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC. The application qua accused Shokeen, Shodan, Fajjar and Rujdar (already died) was dismissed.

¶20

Aggrieved from this part of the order regarding dismissal of the application qua respondents Shokeen, Shodan and Fajjar, present revision petition has been filed.

¶21

The perusal of the record shows that PW-1 Wahid has not named accused Shokeen in his statement. Qua Shodan, only lalkara has been attributed and qua Fajjar, fist and kick blows have been attributed. The perusal of the order dated 27.01.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nuh, shows that no illegality has been committed by the Court while dismissing the application qua these respondents. Learned trial Court has discussed that PW-1 has not even stated that accused Shokeen was accompanying the assailants. Furthermore, the Court held that as per PW-1, accused Fajjar gave kicks and fist blows to Sakir but he did not disclose on which part of body of Sakir, the alleged kicks and fist blows were given by accused Fajjar. Qua Shodan, as stated earlier, only lalkara has been attributed and PW-1 has not stated that any injury is inflicted by Shodan to him and to deceased Sakir.

¶22

The findings given by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nuh, are Vineet Gulati 2017.04.05 17:12 I attest to the accuracy andcorrect, as per evidence and law. While summoning the additional accused, authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

-3-

¶24

CRR No.774 of 2017

¶25

it should appear to the Court that the persons which the prosecution wants to summon as additional accused, appear to have been involved in the commission of the offence. From the above discussion, it does not appear that these respondents are also involved in the commission of the offence.

¶26

In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nuh, is correct, as per evidence and law and no illegality has been committed by the trial Court while passing the order.

¶27

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is

¶28

dismissed.

¶29

March 20, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶30

Vineet Gulati 2017.04.05 17:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Wahid v. Shokeen and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wahid v. Shokeen and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamid Ali & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Nirmal Singh Vs Paramjeet Singh

Som Nath Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Radha Vs State of Punjab

Ram Phal Vs Sanjay Kumar Kashyap & Anr.

Deepak Kumar Vs State of Punjab