IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 19.02.2026 Pronounced on: 25.02.2026 Chamkaur Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Santpal Singh Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepdaman Singh Maan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Gurinder Singh Brar, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

1. This is a revision petition, whereby the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sri Muktsar Sahib, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, has been impugned. The above mentioned order has been passed on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in a trial pertaining to commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 297, 201, 34 IPC and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act.

2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that, that for the commission of above mentioned offence the FIR No.21 dated 31.01.2020 was lodged in Police Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, at the instance of ‘Parminder Singh’, hereinafter being referred to as ‘complainant’ only. It was stated by the complainant before the police that on 31.01.2020 he along with his uncle ‘Sukhchain Singh’ and ‘Baljinder Singh’ was levelling earth for an under construction house nearby ‘dhani’ (Small Hamlet) of his uncle ‘Rajveer Singh’. As per complainant when his father ‘Jaswinder Singh’ and mother ‘Sukhpal Kaur’ were going towards the above mentioned spot on a motorcycle, on the way, in front of house of ‘Rajveer Singh’, they were waylaid by ‘Rajveer Singh’ armed with revolver, ‘Dalour Singh’ armed with 12 bore gun, his sons ‘Chamkaur Singh’ and ‘Balkaur Singh’ and wife ‘Ranjit Kaur’. It was further stated by the complainant the first of all ‘Rajveer Singh’ fired a gun shot hitting the head of ‘Jaswinder Singh’ and when he fell down ‘Sukhpal Kaur’ tried to run away, but ‘Chamkaur Singh’ picked up the revolver from ‘Rajveer Singh’ and fired a gun shot on the back of ‘Sukhpal Kaur’ and therefore, she, too, fell down in the fields. According to above-named complainant, thereafter ‘Balkaur Singh’ took revolver from ‘Chamkaur Singh’ and fired gun shot on the chest and head of ‘Sukhpal Kaur’ and thereafter ‘Dalour Singh’ fired gun shots in the air. It was also stated by the complainant that Ranjit Kaur had exhorted to teach them a lesson, and that on account of above mentioned injuries his parents ‘Jaswinder Singh’ and ‘Sukhpal Kaur’, both, died on the spot itself.

3. A perusal of record shows that on the basis of above mentioned statement once the FIR was lodged and the investigation taken up, the Investigating Agency observed that allegations with regard to involvement of ‘Chamkaur Singh’ and ‘Dalour Singh’ were not true, and therefore, the challan was not filed against the above named two accused. Once the challan was filed and the trial commenced against three other accused, during the course of trial the statement of complainant ‘Parminder Singh’ was recorded as PW-1. In view of contents of above-mentioned statement an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution, seeking for summoning of ‘Chamkaur Singh’ and ‘Dalour Singh’ as additional accused.

4. The learned trial Court considered the above mentioned application and allowed the same vide order dated 07.10.2021. As a result of above-mentioned order ‘Chamkaur Singh’ and ‘Dalour Singh’ were summoned as additional accused. The order dated 07.10.2021 was challenged by the above-named two additional accused by filing a revision petition, i.e. CRR- 1384-2021. The above mentioned revision petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2022 in the following words:-

“Therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court deems it fit and proper to set aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib dated 07.10.2021