IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on :26.08.2025 Pronounced on: 18.09.2025 Dr. Sunanda alias Dr. Sunanda Dass ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.

(through hybrid mode).

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Amritsar. By virtue of above mentioned judgment the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, hereinafter being referred to as trial Court only has exercised its jurisdiction vested by virtue of Section 319 Cr.P.C., and summoned the petitioner as an accused. It is relevant to mention here that the above mentioned trial is with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 306 arising out of FIR No.155 dated 31.07.2013, Police Station Jandiala Guru, Amritsar.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that on 31.07.2013 the above mentioned FIR was lodged in response to the statement of complainant, namely Navjeet Singh. For the investigation of above mentioned case a Special Investigation Team, hereinafter being referred to as SIT, comprising of Superintendent of Police, Investigation, Amritsar (Rural), DSP Jandiala Guru and Inspector Sanjeev Kumar was constituted. The above mentioned SIT on completion of investigation found the petitioner to be innocent and, therefore, she was not prosecuted. Further, the co-accused namely Harpinder Kaur was sent to trial by filing a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Since the petitioner was not prosecuted and the trial commenced against Harpinder Kaur, only, during the course of trial when statement of complainant was recorded on application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and the petitioner has been summoned as co-accused by virtue of impugned order.

3. Aggrieved of the impugned order, this revision petition has been preferred on the ground that the learned trial court, by misappropriating the facts and the law, exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, and summoned the petitioner without considering that there was no iota of evidence against him. The petitioner has alleged that except the bare testimony of complainant Navjeet (as PW-2) there is no other significant evidence on record to indicate the involvement of petitioner in the commission of offence. According to petitioner, the statement of PW-2 is similar to the statement which was made before the police for registration of FIR. As per petitioner once the SIT had examined the facts narrated by the PW-2 before the Court, and found that the petitioner was not involved in the commission of offence, on the basis of same evidence, which was highly unreliable and grossly inadequate, the summoning of petitioner as an additional accused is not warranted. Hence the present petition.

4. Heard.

5. While assailing the impugned order it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that false allegations have been made by the brother of the deceased, i.e. complainant with an intention to black male the petitioner and that, in fact, a false story has been cooked up by the complainant with regard to involvement of petitioner in the commission of crime. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the allegations as contained in the FIR, with regard to involvement of petitioner in the commission of offence, have already been examined by a team headed by a high ranking police officer and recorded the finding on the basis of scientific evidence. coupled with factual matrix, proving that the allegations of the complainant against the petitioner are base less. While alleging that erroneous view has been taken by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order, the petitioner has sought indulgence and interference of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned State