Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/217/2018 of BALBIR SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. on 22 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.217 of 2018 Date of decision: 22.07.2026 Balbir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present :- Mr. Suresh Kumar Aneja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.217 of 2018
Date of decision: 22.07.2026
Balbir Singh
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present :-
Mr. Suresh Kumar Aneja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate
for respondents No.2 to 4.
*****
H.S.GREWAL, J. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the order dated 09.08.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondents No. 2 to 4 as additional accused was dismissed, as well as the order dated 06.10.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court declining the prayer for summoning the SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.24 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M No.217 of 2018
proposed accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as well as the order passed by the revisional Court affirming the said order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record while dismissing the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is contended that the Additional Session Court has erroneously affirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned orders dated 09.08.2017 and 06.10.2017 be set-aside and respondents No. 2 to 4 ordered to be summoned to face trial.
4. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that both the Courts have concurrently recorded a finding that the injuries sustained by the three injured persons have already been attributed to the accused who have been summoned and are facing trial. It has further been held that no specific act or additional injury has been attributed to the proposed accused for summoning them under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned orders, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below warranting interference in the exercise of its jurisdiction.
6. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(H.S.GREWAL) 22.07.2026
JUDGE seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.24 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment