SALAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revisionist-petitioner has invoked revisional jurisdiction, assailing the order dated 30.03.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, thereby summoning the revisionist as an additional accused to face the trial for an offence under Section 392/397/458 IPC in case F.I.R. No. 138 dated 12.02.2009, registered at Police Station City Panipat.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, inter-alia, are that an F.I.R. No. 138 dated 12.02.2009 was lodged with the Police Station City Panipat, stating therein that in the intervening night of 12/13.02.2009, 5/7 robbers have forcibly entered in the house of the complainant and started beating the complainant and his mother. They have taken jewellery from the mother of the complainant by assaulting the mother and complainant and have looted the other household articles as shown in the FIR from the house of the complainant.

(3.) During the investigation in F.I.R. No. 267 dated 25.05.2009 under Sections 399/402 IPC read with Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi, looted items from the house of the complainant were recovered on the disclosure statement of the accused and thereafter, a challan was submitted by the police in the present case against the other accused who are already facing trial. PW4, mother of the complainant appeared as a prosecution witness before the Trial Court has stated that a dacoity was committed in their house at the instance of the present revisionist who has planned the dacoity in the house of the complainant with the conspiracy of the other accused who are already facing trial. Learned Trial Court, having relied upon the statement of PW4 that present revisionist has conspired and planned the dacoity, has summoned the present revisionist to face the trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.