IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 30.01.2026 Roshan Lal ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***

MANISHA BATRA , J. (Oral)

1. The prayer in this revision petition has been made by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in case arising out of FIR No.165 dated 08.04.2022 registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Industrial Sector-29, Panipat, District Panipat, whereby an application filed by him for summoning ten persons as named in the application as additional accused, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR had been registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the petitioner-complainant on 07.04.2022 alleging that on the same evening, he along with his younger brother Sandeep was going to water his Shimla Gujranwala fields and when they reached near the house of one Teelu, they noticed that his younger brother Sonu was going towards his house in a tractor trolley and accused Ritik was going in a tractor towards the fields. A verbal altercation took place between Sonu and Ritik. Within the presence of the complainant, accused Ritik made a call on his phone to his father Brahampal and shortly thereafter, the accused Brahampal along with several other persons reached at the spot. He was carrying a licensed pistol and fired a shot with the same thereby hitting the chest of his younger brother Sandeep. Accused Sachin also fired a shot with intent to kill the complainant. Ompal also fired a shot with a firearm upon Sandeep. Pardeep and Parveen were armed with countrymade pistols and fired in the air. The remaining assailants accompanying the above accused were also armed with various weapons and they caused injuries on the person of family members of the complainant. Sandeep succumbed to the injuries sustained by him and had died. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Usha, Pinki, Monika, Ompal, Pardeep and Satish who were named by the complainant were, however, found to be innocent as they were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence whereas accused Ritik, Mahipal and Brahampal were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against them.

3. As revealed from the record, during the course of trial, the complainant Roshan appeared as PW-1. Thereafter application had been filed by the petitioner/state for summoning ten persons namely, Ompal, Naresh, Pardeep, Parveen, Sachin, Anita, Usha, Saroj, Pinki and Monika as additional accused. This application had been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide order dated 06.06.2025.

Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order as passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned trial Court did not appreciate the material available on record in a proper manner. The fact that the proposed accused were named in the FIR and there were direct allegations against them, had not been considered. The allegations in the FIR have been corroborated by the sworn deposition of the petitioner as recorded in the Court. The learned trial Court did not apply its judicious mind. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. also deserves to be allowed.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and has gone through the material placed on record carefully.

6. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. empowers the Cou