IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.9.2025 Sxxxxxx ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. K.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 03.6.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Fazilka, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondent No. 2 as additional accused has been dismissed in FIR No. 36 dated 29.3.2023 under Sections 376, 506 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Vairoke, District Fazilka.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the present FIR was registered on the statement made by the complainant, alleging therein that accused Surjit Singh, who is son of her maternal aunt-respondent No. 2, committed rape upon her and also threatened to kill her. After 15-20 days of the said occurrence, respondent No. 2 along with accused Surjit Singh came Gurpreet Singh to their house, and requested the mother of the complainant to send her at their house, whereafter the complainant accompanied them to their house. It has further been alleged that in the night, respondent No.2 added some intoxicant material in her meal, upon consuming which, the complainant became unconscious, whereafter the accused and respondent No. 2 made her obscene video, and on the next morning they started blackmailing her by showing that video. It is further alleged that on 25.3.2023, accused Surjit Singh again came to their house and finding the complainant alone, he committed rape upon her. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police and the present FIR was registered.

3. During investigation, respondent No. 2 was declared innocent and challan against accused Surjit Singh was presented before the learned Court concerned. Subsequently, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution for summoning of respondent No. 2 as an additional accused. Vide the impugned order dated 03.6.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 03.6.2024 passed by the learned trial Court is based on an erroneous appreciation of facts and is against the settled principles of law for summoning of additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It has been stated that respondent No. 2 had been particularly named in the FIR and a specific role was attributed to her, that she along with other co-accused administered some intoxicant material to her by mixing it in her meal, after consuming which, the complainant became unconscious, whereafter they made her obscene video and started blackmailing her. However, despite the allegations being reiterated by the complainant on oath, the learned trial Court, by overlooking the same, dismissed the application filed before it, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a very mechanical manner.

5. Learned State counsel submits that though respondent No. 2 was initially declared innocent by the investigating agency, however, after specific and categoric allegations having been levelled against her by the complainant in her deposition as a prosecution witness, an application was moved before the learned trial Court to summon respondent No. 2 as an additional accused, but was dismissed by way of the impugned order dated

03.6.2024.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently contends that mere sweeping allegations have been levelled against respondent No.2 in the FIR. Respondent No. 2 has beeen residing separately from her son i.e. accused Surjeet Singh and had also disinherited him in the year 2020. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating evidence to remotely cor