CRR-1283-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 116 Surender State of Haryana and another Coram : Present: Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. 1. judgment dated 16.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereby an application under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 319 of Cr.P.C.) filed by the Public Prosecutor has been allowed and 2. had been lodged on the statement of complainant Kuldeep S/o Puran Singh (hereinafter referred to as “respondent no.2 09.09.2023, his brother Mukesh (deceased) and Sumit had gone to buy gravel dust. At about 4 pm., he received a call from Monu someone had taken Mukesh to FI rushed to FIMS Hospital, Sonipat and found his brother Mukesh in emergency ward in injured condition. He told him that there was a transaction of Rs.50 lacs of commission with Su and sale of property, however, he was refusing for the same and on account of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Versus State of Haryana and another Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate, and Mr. Vikalp Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. Prayer in the present revision judgment dated 16.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereby an application under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 319 of Cr.P.C.) filed by the Public Prosecutor has been the petitioner has been ordered to Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case had been lodged on the statement of complainant Kuldeep S/o Puran Singh (hereinafter referred to as “respondent no.2- 09.09.2023, his brother Mukesh (deceased) and Sumit had gone to buy gravel dust. At about 4 pm., he received a call from Monu d shot his brother Mukesh in his office and Sumit and Amit had taken Mukesh to FIMS Hospital, Sonipat in injured condition. He immediately rushed to FIMS Hospital, Sonipat and found his brother Mukesh in emergency ward in injured condition. He told him that there was a transaction of Rs.50 lacs of commission with Surender Barwasni (petitioner herein) for purchase and sale of property, however, he was refusing for the same and on account of - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1283-2025 Decided on:16.05.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate, and Mr. Vikalp Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana. revision petition is for setting aside the judgment dated 16.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereby an application under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 319 of Cr.P.C.) filed by the Public Prosecutor has been the petitioner has been ordered to be summoned to face trial. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case had been lodged on the statement of complainant Kuldeep S/o Puran Singh -complainant”), who stated that on 09.09.2023, his brother Mukesh (deceased) and Sumit had gone to buy gravel dust. At about 4 pm., he received a call from Monu, who informed him that shot his brother Mukesh in his office and Sumit and Amit had S Hospital, Sonipat in injured condition. He immediately rushed to FIMS Hospital, Sonipat and found his brother Mukesh in emergency ward in injured condition. He told him that there was a transaction of Rs.50 render Barwasni (petitioner herein) for purchase and sale of property, however, he was refusing for the same and on account of ...Respondents is for setting aside the judgment dated 16.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereby an application under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 319 of Cr.P.C.) filed by the Public Prosecutor has been Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the FIR in the present case had been lodged on the statement of complainant Kuldeep S/o Puran Singh omplainant”), who stated that on 09.09.2023, his brother Mukesh (deceased) and Sumit had gone to buy gravel him that shot his brother Mukesh in his office and Sumit and Amit had S Hospital, Sonipat in injured condition. He immediately rushed to FIMS Hospital, Sonipat and found his brother Mukesh in emergency ward in injured condition. He told him that there was a transaction of Rs.50 render Barwasni (petitioner herein) for purchase VINOD KUMAR and sale of property, however, he was refusing for the same and on account of 2025.05.21 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1283-2025 that, Surender had quarrelled with him about 10 threatened to be killed as well at that time. was sitting with Amit and Sumit in his office, 10 in two white colour cars, i.e. Fortuner and Desire. Out of those, three boys came out of the car and asked about Mukesh. He suspected that Surender Barwasni and Virender Jain had sent them to beat him up. In the meantime, one of the boys entered the office and made a video call on his mobile. He turned the phone towards them and asked the caller to identify Mukesh out of the persons present in the offi and out of fear, he rushed to another room and locked the room. However, the assailants started firing on the door and broke it open with some weapon and entered the room. Out of those boys, three of them Mohit and they were accompanied by 9 pistols by proclaiming that Surender Barwasni and Virender Jain. After having suffered bullet injuries, he was shifted to the hospital by Sumit and Amit. The complainant stated that thereafter the doctors died during treatment. the behest of Surender Barwasn legal action against the culprits. 3. however, during investigation, the petitioner was declared innocent by the investigating agency and, thus challan, the charges were framed and the trial commenced. During trial, Mehtab Singh, brother of Mukesh (deceased) had been examined as PW1 during his cross Barwasni that He, thus, deposed before the Court that statement of Mukesh (deceased) should 2025 that, Surender had quarrelled with him about 10 threatened to be killed as well at that time. On the day was sitting with Amit and Sumit in his office, 10 in two white colour cars, i.e. Fortuner and Desire. Out of those, three boys came out of the car and asked about Mukesh. He suspected that Surender wasni and Virender Jain had sent them to beat him up. In the meantime, one of the boys entered the office and made a video call on his mobile. He turned the phone towards them and asked the caller to identify Mukesh out of the persons present in the office. Then, the caller identified him to be Mukesh and out of fear, he rushed to another room and locked the room. However, the assailants started firing on the door and broke it open with some weapon and entered the room. Out of those boys, three of them Mohit and they were accompanied by 9-10 boys. They started firing with their pistols by proclaiming that they had interfered in the property matter of Surender Barwasni and Virender Jain. After having suffered bullet injuries, he was shifted to the hospital by Sumit and Amit. The complainant stated that thereafter the doctors informed the complainant that his brother M died during treatment. He alleged that Mukesh was murdered by shooting at the behest of Surender Barwasni and Virender Jain and requested for taking legal action against the culprits. On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced, however, during investigation, the petitioner was declared innocent by the investigating agency and, thus he was kept in column no.2. On presentation of challan, the charges were framed and the trial commenced. During trial, Mehtab Singh, brother of Mukesh (deceased) had been examined as PW1 during his cross-examination, he deposed that he had sent the assailants to kill He, thus, deposed before the Court that statement of Mukesh (deceased) should - 2 - that, Surender had quarrelled with him about 10-15 days ago and he was On the day of occurrence, when he was sitting with Amit and Sumit in his office, 10-12 boys came to Sumit’s store in two white colour cars, i.e. Fortuner and Desire. Out of those, three boys came out of the car and asked about Mukesh. He suspected that Surender wasni and Virender Jain had sent them to beat him up. In the meantime, one of the boys entered the office and made a video call on his mobile. He turned the phone towards them and asked the caller to identify Mukesh out of ce. Then, the caller identified him to be Mukesh and out of fear, he rushed to another room and locked the room. However, the assailants started firing on the door and broke it open with some weapon and entered the room. Out of those boys, three of them were Sunny, Akshay and 10 boys. They started firing with their had interfered in the property matter of Surender Barwasni and Virender Jain. After having suffered bullet injuries, he was shifted to the hospital by Sumit and Amit. The complainant stated that informed the complainant that his brother Mukesh had He alleged that Mukesh was murdered by shooting at i and Virender Jain and requested for taking On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced, however, during investigation, the petitioner was declared innocent by the ept in column no.2. On presentation of challan, the charges were framed and the trial commenced. During trial, Mehtab Singh, brother of Mukesh (deceased) had been examined as PW1 and deposed against the petitioner Surende he had sent the assailants to kill his brother Mukesh (deceased) He, thus, deposed before the Court that statement of Mukesh (deceased) should 15 days ago and he was , when he Sumit’s store in two white colour cars, i.e. Fortuner and Desire. Out of those, three boys came out of the car and asked about Mukesh. He suspected that Surender wasni and Virender Jain had sent them to beat him up. In the meantime, one of the boys entered the office and made a video call on his mobile. He turned the phone towards them and asked the caller to identify Mukesh out of ce. Then, the caller identified him to be Mukesh and out of fear, he rushed to another room and locked the room. However, the assailants started firing on the door and broke it open with some weapon and were Sunny, Akshay and 10 boys. They started firing with their had interfered in the property matter of Surender Barwasni and Virender Jain. After having suffered bullet injuries, he was shifted to the hospital by Sumit and Amit. The complainant stated that kesh had He alleged that Mukesh was murdered by shooting at i and Virender Jain and requested for taking On registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced, however, during investigation, the petitioner was declared innocent by the ept in column no.2. On presentation of challan, the charges were framed and the trial commenced. During trial, and against the petitioner Surender his brother Mukesh (deceased). VINOD KUMAR He, thus, deposed before the Court that statement of Mukesh (deceased) should 2025.05.21 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1283-2025 be treated as “dying declaration” and proceed against him under Section accused, who are already facing the trial. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the sides on the application allowed the same vide the impugned order dated 16.04.2025. Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition. 4. vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. A thorough and fair investigation was carried out and on conclusion of investigation, the allegations made against the petitioner were not substantiated and hence, the investigating agency declared him innocent by putting him in column no.2. It is submitted that the trial Court has examined Mehtab Singh, brother of deceased Mukesh, as PW1, complainant Kuldeep as PW2 and Sumit, e supported case of the prosecution but the learned trial Court miserably failed to appreciate their evidence and, thus, illegal summoned the petitioner. He submitted that the video clip recorded by PW4 Sumit but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the view taken by the learned trial Court video clips petitioner has been summoned only on the basis of presumption and assumptions but the same is against the law settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of thus, submitted that the impugned order, being in violation of the law settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, deserves to be set aside. 2025 be treated as “dying declaration” and finding the proceed against the petitioner, the prosecution filed application for summoning under Section 358 of BNSS, 2023 to face the trial along with the other accused, who are already facing the trial. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the sides on the application filed under Section allowed the same vide the impugned order dated 16.04.2025. Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition. Learned Senior counsel appearin vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. A thorough and fair investigation was carried out and on conclusion of investigation, the allegations made against the petitioner were not substantiated and hence, the investigating agency declared him innocent by putting him in column no.2. It is submitted that the trial Court has examined Mehtab Singh, brother of deceased Mukesh, as PW1, complainant Kuldeep as PW2 and Sumit, eye witness, as PW4, however, supported case of the prosecution but the learned trial Court miserably failed to appreciate their evidence and, thus, illegal summoned the petitioner. He submitted that the video clips produced before the recorded by PW4 Sumit but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the view taken by the learned trial Court is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been summoned only on the basis of presumption and assumptions but the same is against the law settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, thus, submitted that the impugned order, being in violation of the law settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, deserves to be set aside. - 3 - finding the same as reliable evidence to the prosecution filed application for summoning to face the trial along with the other accused, who are already facing the trial. The learned trial Court, after hearing filed under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023 allowed the same vide the impugned order dated 16.04.2025. Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. A thorough and fair investigation was carried out and on conclusion of investigation, the allegations made against the petitioner were not found to be substantiated and hence, the investigating agency declared him innocent by putting him in column no.2. It is submitted that the trial Court has examined Mehtab Singh, brother of deceased Mukesh, as PW1, complainant Kuldeep as ye witness, as PW4, however, all the said witnesses have not supported case of the prosecution but the learned trial Court miserably failed to appreciate their evidence and, thus, illegal summoned the petitioner. He before the trial Court were allegedly recorded by PW4 Sumit but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the view taken by the learned trial Court while relying upon the said is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been summoned only on the basis of presumption and assumptions but the same is against the law settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2014(3) SCC 92. He, thus, submitted that the impugned order, being in violation of the law settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, deserves to be set aside. reliable evidence to the prosecution filed application for summoning to face the trial along with the other accused, who are already facing the trial. The learned trial Court, after hearing 358 of the BNSS, 2023, allowed the same vide the impugned order dated 16.04.2025. Hence, aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of g on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. A thorough and fair investigation was carried out and on conclusion of found to be substantiated and hence, the investigating agency declared him innocent by putting him in column no.2. It is submitted that the trial Court has examined Mehtab Singh, brother of deceased Mukesh, as PW1, complainant Kuldeep as have not supported case of the prosecution but the learned trial Court miserably failed to appreciate their evidence and, thus, illegal summoned the petitioner. He allegedly recorded by PW4 Sumit but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. relying upon the said is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been summoned only on the basis of presumption and assumptions but the same is against the law settled by Hon’ble the Supreme 2014(3) SCC 92. He, thus, submitted that the impugned order, being in violation of the law settled by VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.21 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1283-2025 5. submissions made by learned Senio submitted that there were ample evidence against the petitioner and, thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and hence, the present revision petition deserves dismissal being denuded of any merit. 6. available record with their able assistance. 7. was specifically named in the FIR. The FIR in the present case though h been lodged on the statement of respondent no.2 however, perusal of the said FIR would show that the complainant had stated that before his death, his brother Mukesh had told him details of the entire occurrence and it has been alle about the motive of the attack opened upon him as he was having a dispute with the petitioner on account of money transactions between him and the petitioner. It has been contended that once the deceased had statement before his death to the complainant, the same be treated as a “dying declaration”. The Kuldeep as PW2 and Sumit, eye witness as PW4. Though these witnesses turned hostile, however examination, they were confronted with two video clips contained in pen drive Ex.MO-1 and as per the record, the said video clips contained the material evidence supporting appreciated by the learned trial Court while summoning the petitioner under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023. For appreciation of the issue involved, Section 358 of BNSS, 2023 is relevant, which is reproduced here 2025 Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that there were ample evidence against the petitioner and, thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and hence, the present revision petition deserves dismissal being denuded of any merit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perus available record with their able assistance. It is deciphered from the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR. The FIR in the present case though h been lodged on the statement of respondent no.2 however, perusal of the said FIR would show that the complainant had stated that before his death, his brother Mukesh had told him details of the entire occurrence and it has been alleged that the deceased had specifically told him about the motive of the attack opened upon him as he was having a dispute with the petitioner on account of money transactions between him and the petitioner. It has been contended that once the deceased had statement before his death to the complainant, the same be treated as a “dying declaration”. The prosecution examined Mehtab Singh as PW1, complainant Kuldeep as PW2 and Sumit, eye witness as PW4. Though these witnesses turned hostile, however, they have been cross examination, they were confronted with two video clips contained in pen drive 1 and as per the record, the said video clips contained the material evidence supporting allegations against the peti appreciated by the learned trial Court while summoning the petitioner under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023. For appreciation of the issue involved, Section 358 of BNSS, 2023 is relevant, which is reproduced here “358. Power to Proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. - 4 - learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the r counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that there were ample evidence against the petitioner and, thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and hence, the present revision petition deserves dismissal being denuded of any merit. counsel for the parties and perused the from the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR. The FIR in the present case though h been lodged on the statement of respondent no.2-complainant Kuldeep, however, perusal of the said FIR would show that the complainant had stated that before his death, his brother Mukesh had told him details of the entire ged that the deceased had specifically told him about the motive of the attack opened upon him as he was having a dispute with the petitioner on account of money transactions between him and the petitioner. It has been contended that once the deceased had given the statement before his death to the complainant, the same be treated as a “dying prosecution examined Mehtab Singh as PW1, complainant Kuldeep as PW2 and Sumit, eye witness as PW4. Though these witnesses , they have been cross-examined and during their cross examination, they were confronted with two video clips contained in pen drive 1 and as per the record, the said video clips contained the material allegations against the petitioner, which has rightly been appreciated by the learned trial Court while summoning the petitioner under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023. For appreciation of the issue involved, Section 358 of BNSS, 2023 is relevant, which is reproduced here-as-under:- Power to Proceed against other persons appearing learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the r counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that there were ample evidence against the petitioner and, thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and hence, the present ed the from the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR. The FIR in the present case though has complainant Kuldeep, however, perusal of the said FIR would show that the complainant had stated that before his death, his brother Mukesh had told him details of the entire ged that the deceased had specifically told him about the motive of the attack opened upon him as he was having a dispute with the petitioner on account of money transactions between him and the given the statement before his death to the complainant, the same be treated as a “dying prosecution examined Mehtab Singh as PW1, complainant Kuldeep as PW2 and Sumit, eye witness as PW4. Though these witnesses examined and during their cross- examination, they were confronted with two video clips contained in pen drive 1 and as per the record, the said video clips contained the material tioner, which has rightly been appreciated by the learned trial Court while summoning the petitioner under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023. For appreciation of the issue involved, Power to Proceed against other persons appearing VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.21 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1283-2025 8. it is evident that the petitioner has been alleged to be the person behind the murder of deceased Mukesh. The FIR has also been registered on the allegations that the deceased himself had told about the inv petitioner to the complainant. Whether the alleged statement is a “dying declaration” or not is a matter of trial and the Court would refrain from commenting on the same at this stage. However, besides the cross of witnesses PW1 M clips contained in pen drive Ex.MO favour with the trial Court to be treated it as summon the petitioner under Section same within the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Singh’s case (supra). 2025 (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner has been alleged to be the person behind the murder of deceased Mukesh. The FIR has also been registered on the allegations that the deceased himself had told about the inv petitioner to the complainant. Whether the alleged statement is a “dying declaration” or not is a matter of trial and the Court would refrain from commenting on the same at this stage. However, besides the cross of witnesses PW1 Mehtab Singh, PW2 Kuldeep and PW4 Sumit, two video clips contained in pen drive Ex.MO-1 has also been produced, which finds favour with the trial Court to be treated it as summon the petitioner under Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023, same within the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Singh’s case (supra). - 5 - Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which h person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. Where the Court proceeds against any person under the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner has been alleged to be the person behind the murder of deceased Mukesh. The FIR has also been registered on the allegations that the deceased himself had told about the involvement of petitioner to the complainant. Whether the alleged statement is a “dying declaration” or not is a matter of trial and the Court would refrain from commenting on the same at this stage. However, besides the cross-examination ehtab Singh, PW2 Kuldeep and PW4 Sumit, two video 1 has also been produced, which finds favour with the trial Court to be treated it as prima facie “evidence” to 358 of the BNSS, 2023, while gazing the same within the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Hardeep Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which h person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the Any person attending the Court, although not under Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence Where the Court proceeds against any person under the proceedings in respect of such person shall and the witnesses re- subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner has been alleged to be the person behind the murder of deceased Mukesh. The FIR has also been registered on the olvement of petitioner to the complainant. Whether the alleged statement is a “dying declaration” or not is a matter of trial and the Court would refrain from examination ehtab Singh, PW2 Kuldeep and PW4 Sumit, two video 1 has also been produced, which finds evidence” to while gazing the Hardeep VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.21 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1283-2025 9. present case on the anvil of the law settled, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit. May 16, 2025 vinod* 2025 Thus, while weighing overall facts and circumstances of the case on the anvil of the law settled, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit. , 2025 Whether Speaking/Reasoned: Whether Reportable: - 6 - Thus, while weighing overall facts and circumstances of the case on the anvil of the law settled, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit. (Rajesh Bhardwaj) Judge Whether Speaking/Reasoned: NO/YES NO/YES Thus, while weighing overall facts and circumstances of the case on the anvil of the law settled, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court and hence, the present revision VINOD KUMAR 2025.05.21 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document