IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision 08.05.2026.

RAM AVTAR AND OTHERS ...... PETITIONERS VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present : Mr. Vikram Sheoran, Advocate and Mr. Kunal Phogat, Advocate for the petitioners.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH . J .

CRM-14347-2026 Allowed as prayed for.

Main case

1. This is a petition under Section 528 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’, hereinafter being referred to as “BNSS”. The petitioners who are aggrieved of the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Rohtak, duly affirmed in a revision petition by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rohtak vide, order dated

19.12.2025, have preferred the present petition.

2. The above-mentioned orders have been issued in the backdrop of the fact that at the instance of ‘Raj Bala’, hereinafter being referred to as complainant only, the FIR for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 506, 307 and 326 of Indian Penal Code was lodged in Police Station Kalanaur, District Rohtak. Once the above-mentioned FIR was lodged, the investigation was conducted by the police and on completion of investigation final report, under Section 173 Cr.P.C., was filed by the Investigating Officer before the Court. In the above-mentioned report, five accused, namely ‘Ram Avtar’, ‘Nitin’, ‘Ritik’, ‘Vikas’ and ‘Sushila @ Babli’ (the petitioners herein), who were duly named in the FIR, were exonerated, and thus by placing them in column No.12 of the above-mentioned report, they were not prosecuted.

3. Once the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was under consideration before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, an application under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant and a prayer was made to summon the petitioners as accused to face the trial. The above-mentioned application had been filed on the ground that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the petitioners were involved in the commission of offence. The above-mentioned application was allowed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, vide order dated 28.07.2022.

4. The record further reveals that the above-said order, dated 28.07.2022, was challenged by the petitioners by filing a revision petition in the Court of Sessions. The above-mentioned revision petition, bearing No.CRR/69/2022, was dealt with by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak and the learned Additional Sessions Judge Rohtak, vide judgment dated 19.12.2025, dismissed the above-mentioned revision petition. Aggrieved of both the above-mentioned orders, the present revision petition has been preferred.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Rohtak dated 28.07.2022 is perverse being outcome of wrong appreciation of fact as well as law. According to learned counsel for the petitioners once the FIR in this case was lodged, a proper investigation was conducted by the Investigating Agency and during the course of investigation, it was was recorded that neither the petitioners were having any reason/enmity to indulge in any activity of beating the complainant and his family, nor they were present on the spot at the time of occurrence, and thus, they were innocent. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the above-mentioned conclusion was drawn by the Investigating Agency by taking into consideration the entire mitigating circumstances and the scientific evidence, and that the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate without going through the entire material, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises allowed the application filed by the complainant, and invoked the jurisdiction vested in it by virtue of Section 190(1)(b) to summon the petitioners to face trial.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the law with regard to sum