Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present petition, challenge has been made to an order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby, an application moved at the instance of prosecution, invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., for the purpose of summoning of the petitioners has been allowed.

2. Facts leading to the present case are that an FIR No.61 dated 30.04.2017 was registered under Sections 302 /34 IPC and under Section 25 and 27 of the ARMS ACT , at Police Station Sadar Raikot, Ludhiana, at the instance of Gurmeet Kaur i.e. respondent No.2 herein thereby implicating the petitioners besides one Hardeep Singh for alleged murder of her father namely Shingara Singh. During investigation, based on an inquiry report dated 28.07.2017, the petitioners were placed in Column No.2, whereas, challan was presented only against Hardeep Singh. During trial, the complainant/respondent No.2 Gurmeet Kaur appeared as PW-1 being the eyewitness and in her deposition attributed specific role to the petitioners.

3. Relying thereupon, the prosecution moved an application invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C., for the purpose of summoning of the petitioners to face trial in the aforementioned FIR. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide order dated 16.03.2022, allowed the prayer made under Section 319 Cr.P.C. thereby summoning the petitioners to face trial under Sections 302 /341 IPC along with Sections 25 and 27 of ARMS ACT . It is the aforesaid order which has been impugned by way of present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that in the wake of inquiry report dated 28.07.2017, exonerating the petitioners coupled with mere reiteration of the contents of the FIR by Gurmeet Kaur (PW-1) in her deposition made before the Court, the trial Court committed an error of law while summoning the petitioners. He also submits that while exercising the powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., the trial Court was required to record its prima facie satisfaction as regards the possibility of conviction of the individual sought to be summoned.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 supported the order passed by the trial Court while submitting that the inquiry report dated 28.07.2017 as relied upon by the petitioners was not based on statements of any of the villagers who did not even come forward for the said purpose under the threat of enmity with the alleged accuseds. It was also contended that in view of specific allegations made against the petitioners in the deposition of PW-1, at this stage only a prima facie view was required to be expressed by the trial Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I am unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of petitioners.

7. The complainant/respondent No.2 Gurmeet Kaur while appearing as PW-1 before the trial Court has attributed specific and categoric role to each of the petitioners which, thus, has to be appreciated and evaluated by the trial Court and cannot be ignored and discarded at this stage. A relevant extracts from the statement of PW-1 is reproduced hereunder for reference:

“………..When I and Jaspreet Kaur reached outside the village near the graveyard we saw that Hardeep Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh, Sukhdev Singh S/o Santa Singh, Jugraj Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh and Harbans Kaur W/o Sukhdev Singh encircled my father along-with the tractor. Harbans Kaur had caught hold my father from his arms. Front light and back light of the tractor were on. Accused were having black colour Scorpio at th