Ritu Bahri, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the summoning orders dated 5.7.2013 (Annexure P -5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot on an application made under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2.) FIR No. 21 dated 12.3.2012 under Sections 307, 326, 341, 148, 149 IPC was registered against the accused Sohan Lal, Rampal along with Madan Lal, Neeru Kumari and Veena Kumari. Madan Lal, Neeru Kumari and Veena Kumari were kept in column no. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.3.2012 at about 8:30 PM, Mintu Saini, complainant along with his uncle Surjeet Singh was coming on motorcycle bearing No. PB -35 -K -5837 from Batth Sahib to Village Jaswali and when they reached near the shop of petitioner no. 3 -Dr. Madan Lal, Sohan Lal and Rampal gave them signal to stop. But due to fear they ran away from the spot on the motorcycle. A little ahead, petitioners no. 1 & 2, Neeru Kumari and Veena Kumari suddenly came in front of the motrocycle and at that time, Madan Lal, Sohan Lal and Rampal reached the spot. Sohan Lal armed with sword gave a blow on the neck of Minut Saini respondent no. 2 -complainant, who raised his hand to save himself, which hit on his under shoulder and he fell down from the motorcycle and also gave injuries to Surjeet Singh. Thereafter, one person Hardeep Singh came there and took them to Chauhan Hospital, Pathankot. Thereafter, complainant was referred to Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar. On an enquiry conducted by the DSP, Sh. Prabhjot Singh Virk and after recording the statements of the three persons, petitioners were found innocent. In the enquiry report, it was observed by the DSP that there was a love affair between respondent no. 2 -complainant, Mintu Saini and Monika daughter of Sohan Lal. Mintu Saini along with Surjeet Singh used to tease Monika and thereafter Mintu Saini had taken poison. Hence the respondent was carrying a grudge against the family members of Monica and has named them in the FIR. That is why they were kept in column no. 2 in the challan (Annexure P -1). The statement of the complainant was recorded by the trial Court on 31.5.2013 (Annexure P -2) in which he reiterated the sequence of events as stated in the FIR. Based on the statement Annexure P -2, the application made under Section 319 by the respondent (Annexure P -3) has been allowed.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has argued that the only role attributed to the petitioners no. 1 & 2 is that they suddenly came in front of the motorcycle which was being driven by Mintu Saini. Thereafter Madan Lal had raised Lalkara and because of their act, the motorcycle was stopped by the complainant and they were inflicted grievous injuries by Sohan Lal and Ram Pal which were declared dangerous to life by the Doctor. She has referred to a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Hukam Chand and another vs. State of Haryana and another, : 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 141 to contend that in the FIR, no role or injury has been attributed to the three petitioners hence by merely reiterating the allegations of the FIR while appearing as PW -1, the petitioners cannot be summoned to face a trial. Moreover, since the complainant was having a love affair with the daughter of Sohan Lal, petitioner no. 2, Veena Kumari being the mother of the girl and petitioner no. 1, Neeru Kumari being wife of Ram Pal, the second accused have just been roped in as complainant was nursing a grudge against them.;