Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 9-10-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, petitioners Isham Singh, Charana and Saraba, have filed this petition for quashing of the said order vide which they have been summoned as an additional accused to face the trial under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326 and 34, I.P.C. along with four more accused.

2. In this case, on the written complaint of one Jodha Ram, an FIR was lodged against seven persons under the aforesaid Sections at Police Station Pehowa. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the complainant and the accused were having their agricultural land adjacent to each other. On account of spray of pesticides, there was some misunderstanding in the mind of the accused. On that account, on day, i.e., on 18-3-2001, all the accused armed with deadly weapons came in the street in front of the house of the complainant and started abusing him. When the complainant asked why they were abusing him, upon this all the accused raised a lalkara and started to give Lathis, Kulhari and Saria blows on the body of the complainant. The accused persons caused injuries on his legs, head, back and other parts of the body and also caused fracture on the leg. The complainant cried in loud voice, upon which, Jagdish, Ram Singh and Santosh wife of the complainant attracted to the spot and rescued the complainant from the cruel clutches of the accused. Thereafter all the accused ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons, after giving threat to kill the complainant in near future.

3. The complaint was referred under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. on the basis of which, the aforessaid FIR was registered. The matter was investigated by the police. On enquiry, the police found that all the three petitioners were not invloved in the crime and the challan was only filed against four persons from whom the weapons were recovered and who, according to the police investigation, were involved in the crime.

4. The Illaqa Magistrate found a prima facie case and charge-sheeted the four accused. The prosecution in its evidence examined Ram Singh P.W. 1, eye-witness ASI Ram Pal P.W. 2 and Jodha Ram, complainant P. W. 3. At that stage, an application was filed by the complaint under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners to stand trial with the remaining accused. The said application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitoners submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acted illegally while summoning the petitioners as an additional accused to face the trial as from the evidence got recorded by the prosecution, it is not reflected that the petitioners had committed the offence. As per the prosecution version, there were three eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Ram Singh, Jagdish and Smt. Santosh. Out of the three eye-witnesses, statement of only Ram Singh was got recorded. In his statement as P.W. 1, Ram Singh did not support the prosecution version and he was declared hostile. The statements of the other two alleged eye-witnesses were not recorded before passing of the impugned order. However, another independent eye-witness, namely, Jagdish, in his statement before the police under Section 161, Cr.P.C. did not name any of the petitioners for the alleged offence. The second witness examined by the prosecution is P.W. 2 ASI Ram Pal. This witness has also not named any of the petitioners for the alleged offense. According to him, in his investigation, all the three petitioners were not involved in the occurrence. Further, no recovery of any weapons used in the crime, was made from the petitioners. All the weapons were recovered from the possession of the four accused, who as per the police investigation, were involved in the crime. He categorically stated that according to his investigation, the complainant has falsely named the three petitioners. The third w