CRR-3347-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 CRR-3347-2025 Date of Decision: 24.02.2026 SETH PAL ......... Peoners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the peoner. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) 1. Challenging the order dated 27.11.2025 vide which learned Addional Sessions Judge, Panipat had allowed the applicaon under Secon 319 CrPC and had summoned the peoner as an addional accused, has come up before this Court by filing the present criminal revision peon. 2. Counsel for the peoner submits that no specific injury has been a,ributed to the peoner as per the story of prosecuon He further submits that PW 2, in his statement on oath has not stated that the peoner had caught hold of the vicm which is a factor in his favour and order of summoning peoner as an addional accused is liable to be set aside on this ground. 3. I have gone through the record. One of the reasons given by the learned Sessions Court was that a lathi blow had been a,ributed to Seth Pal. However, upon perusal of the copy of the FIR, it transpires that the role a,ributed to Seth Pal therein is that he, along with Rinku, had merely caught hold of the complainant. Be that as it may, even if the role as menoned in the FIR is taken into consideraon, the only queson that remains to be determined is whether charges are to be framed solely on the basis of the role a,ributed to the peoner in the FIR and in the subsequent statements, recorded before the trial Court. JYOTI 2026.02.27 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRR-3347-2025 2 4. On the face of it, there is no illegality in the order of summoning the accused except that menoning of the lathi blow was contrary to the FIR in which Seth Pal is stated to have only caught hold of the complainant. 5. If the only allegaons of holding the vicm is taken into consideraon, in that case, no ground is made out to set aside the order of summoning the peoner. At the me of making his statement a PW-2 was deposing not against the present peoner but against the other accused. As such, the argument of absence of descripon of peoner is also not helpful. 6. Given above, the present peon is dismissed with clarificaon that while framing charges, learned trial Court shall frame charges only on those offences in which prima facie case is made out a:er assessing the all material on record. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 24.02.2026 Jyo -II Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No JYOTI 2026.02.27 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.