120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:04.07.2025 Ravinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Ankush Rampal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Simran Goria, AAG, Punjab.

***

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (ORAL)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide which an application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.PC for summoning of additional accused namely Lovish Kumar son of Arjan Kumar and Makhan Kumar @ Babbi i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3, in case FIR No.199 dated 02.09.2020 under Section 306 of IPC, registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda, has been dismissed.

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are that the petitioner before this Court is the complainant of above said FIR, wherein he alleged that his younger brother was Sukhwinder Singh (deceased). Sahil Kumar @ Shelly and Simpa Johar had fraudulently transferred a house in the name of Arjun Kumar’s son (Lovish Kumar). His brother Sukhwinder Singh was deeply distressed due to the same. These three persons i.e. Sahil Kumar @ Shelly and Simpa Johar and Arjun Kumar used to threat his brother to vacate the house and forcibly throw him out of the house. On account of the threatening given by these three persons, his brother Sukhwinder Singh committed suicide by hanging himself. It was alleged that all these three persons were responsible for the suicide committed by his brother and thus, the legal action be taken against them. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented and the learned trial Court after framing of charges, commenced the trial. During trial, Nirmala Devi i.e. mother of the deceased was examined as PW4, wherein she deposed against respondent Nos.2 and 3 namely Lovish Kumar and Makhan Kumar @ Babbi and alleged that they were also responsible for the death of her son, in addition to three accused already facing the trial. Thus, an application under Section 319 Cr.PC was filed for summoning both these accused. However, after hearing both the sides, the trial Court declined the same vide its impugned order dated 03.04.2025. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that impugned order is illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law, thus, deserves to be set aside. He submits that Nirmala Devi (mother of the deceased) had been examined as PW4, wherein the specific allegation has been made against both respondent Nos.2 and 3 and thus, their complicity has been established. He submits that the deceased left a suicide note, which is part of the challan, however, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the same. He further submits that as per law settled, degree of satisfaction was sufficient qua both respondent Nos.2 and 3 and thus, they were liable to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.PC to face the trial along with other accused persons. However, the learned trial Court has drawn the conclusion, which is violative of the law settled and thus, the impugned order being unsustainable in the eyes of law deserves to be set aside.

4. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Admittedly, petitioner is the author of the FIR and levelled allegations against three accused in the FIR. There was no whisper of any allegations against both respondent Nos.2 and 3. However, they have been alleged to be accused for the first time in the deposition of the witnesses Nirmala Devi-PW4 before the trial Court. As observed by the trial Court, though the suicide note is also part of the challan filed by the investigating agency, however, in the suicide note as well, allegation were found to be levelled by the de