CRR-1307-2025 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT 119 Amardeep Singh State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. for the petitioner. SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL) This r Additional Sessions Judge, petitioner under Section additional accused, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner complainant in FIR No.141 dated 29.05.2020, under Sections 379B, 341, 323, 325, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC, Police Station B Division, Amritsar specific allegations were levelled against respondents No.2 and 3 who instigated co- exonerated respondents No.2 and 3 and placed their names in column No.2 of the challan. After framing of charges, petitioner appeared as prosecution 2025 (O&M) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Amardeep Singh VERSUS State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL) This revision petition challenges order dated Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which an application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondents No.2 and 3 additional accused, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner complainant in FIR No.141 dated 29.05.2020, under Sections 379B, 341, 323, 325, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC, Police Station B Division, Amritsar specific allegations were levelled against respondents No.2 and 3 who -accused to commit the offence respondents No.2 and 3 and placed their names in column No.2 of the challan. After framing of charges, petitioner appeared as prosecution -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1307-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.07.2025 ... Petitioner ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL, J. (ORAL) evision petition challenges order dated 21.02.2025 of learned , vide which an application filed by the for summoning respondents No.2 and 3, as Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was complainant in FIR No.141 dated 29.05.2020, under Sections 379B, 341, 323, 325, 506, 148 and 149 of IPC, Police Station B Division, Amritsar, wherein specific allegations were levelled against respondents No.2 and 3 who o commit the offences. Without any basis, the police respondents No.2 and 3 and placed their names in column No.2 of the challan. After framing of charges, petitioner appeared as prosecution IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT .2025 ... Petitioner Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL of learned , vide which an application filed by the , as titioner was complainant in FIR No.141 dated 29.05.2020, under Sections 379B, 341, 323, , wherein specific allegations were levelled against respondents No.2 and 3 who the police respondents No.2 and 3 and placed their names in column No.2 of the challan. After framing of charges, petitioner appeared as prosecution KAPIL 2026.07.16 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1307-2025 witness on 13.10.2023. In his examination in chief, version. Though there was learned Additional Sessions Judge, statement of the petitioner arbitrary based on incorrect appreciation of evidence and deserved to be set aside. 3. The issue regarding the scope and extent of powers of the court to arraign any person as an accused during the course of inquiry or trial in exercise of power under Sec rest by a Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Vs State of Punjab 2014 (1) R.C.R. Criminal 623 : 2014 (1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 384 : JT 2014 (1) SC 412 summarised as under: “ extra those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exer of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power manner. 99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be 2025 (O&M) witness on 13.10.2023. In his examination in chief, . Though there was sufficient evidence to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissed the application ignor statement of the petitioner on oath. Order dated 21.02.2025 rbitrary based on incorrect appreciation of evidence and deserved to be set The issue regarding the scope and extent of powers of the court to arraign any person as an accused during the course of inquiry or trial in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (now Section 358 BNSS) has been set at rest by a Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Vs State of Punjab 2014 (1) R.C.R. Criminal 623 : 2014 (1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 384 : JT 2014 (1) SC 412 summarised as under:- “98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be -2- witness on 13.10.2023. In his examination in chief, he reiterated his first sufficient evidence to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. , dismissed the application ignoring rder dated 21.02.2025 was illegal, rbitrary based on incorrect appreciation of evidence and deserved to be set The issue regarding the scope and extent of powers of the court to arraign any person as an accused during the course of inquiry or trial in exercise tion 319 Cr.P.C. (now Section 358 BNSS) has been set at rest by a Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab 2014 (1) R.C.R. Criminal 623 : 2014 (1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 384 : JT 2014 (1) SC 412. The legal position is 98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is cised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier 99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be he reiterated his first sufficient evidence to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C., ing was illegal, rbitrary based on incorrect appreciation of evidence and deserved to be set The issue regarding the scope and extent of powers of the court to arraign any person as an accused during the course of inquiry or trial in exercise tion 319 Cr.P.C. (now Section 358 BNSS) has been set at Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab 2014 (1) R.C.R. Criminal 623 : 2014 (1) Recent . The legal position is 98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is cised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier 99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be KAPIL 2026.07.16 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1307-2025 established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of CrossExamination, it requires much strong evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, wou conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C 4. Thus, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though only a case has to be established from the evidence led befor necessarily tested on the anvil of cross evidence then mere probability of his/her complicity. The test that has to be applied is one, which is more than framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction....... 5. In Gujarat and Others 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 915 (S.C.) Court went a step further to hold that: “ out whether a person who ought to have been added as an accused had erroneously been omitted or has deliberately been excluded by the invest on the basis of the evidence so led during the trial. On the degree 2025 (O&M) established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of CrossExamination, it requires much strong evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, wou conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C Thus, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though only a case has to be established from the evidence led befor necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence then mere probability of his/her complicity. The test that has to be applied is one, which is more than prima facie raming of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction....... In Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Anothers Vs State of Gujarat and Others 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 915 (S.C.) Court went a step further to hold that:- “8. Section 319 of the Code confers power on the trial court to find out whether a person who ought to have been added as an accused had erroneously been omitted or has deliberately been excluded by the investigating agency and that satisfaction has to be arrived at on the basis of the evidence so led during the trial. On the degree -3- established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of CrossExamination, it requires much strong evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.” Thus, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though only a prima facie case has to be established from the evidence led before the Court, not examination, it requires much stronger evidence then mere probability of his/her complicity. The test that has to be prima facie case as exercised at the time of raming of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction....... Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Anothers Vs State of Gujarat and Others 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) 915 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Apex 8. Section 319 of the Code confers power on the trial court to find out whether a person who ought to have been added as an accused had erroneously been omitted or has deliberately been excluded by igating agency and that satisfaction has to be arrived at on the basis of the evidence so led during the trial. On the degree established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of CrossExamination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction ld lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should prima facie e the Court, not examination, it requires much stronger evidence then mere probability of his/her complicity. The test that has to be case as exercised at the time of raming of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Anothers Vs State of Apex 8. Section 319 of the Code confers power on the trial court to find out whether a person who ought to have been added as an accused had erroneously been omitted or has deliberately been excluded by igating agency and that satisfaction has to be arrived at on the basis of the evidence so led during the trial. On the degree KAPIL 2026.07.16 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1307-2025 of satisfaction for invoking power under Section 319 of the Code, this Court observed that though the test of prima facie case bei made out is same as that when the cognizance of the offence is taken and process issued, the degree of satisfaction under Section 319 of the Code is much higher. 6. To appreciate the legality of impugned order, it would be relevant to refer to the v President of East Mohan Nagar Park Society there was a meeting of the locality. At the time of meeting Shehzada and Parminder Singh Chauhan with each other for forming new members. He tried to make them understand but Babu and Ravikant threatening him associates along with weapons to the park. After some time Rajan son of Parminder Singh along with 5 with guns. Gurpreet Singh @ Raj immediately raised a lalk abusing him. other day but Parminder Singh Chauhan and his son Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan along with their accomplices forcibly stopped his hand, held pistol on his face which hit left side of his nose started thrashing him this, someone took gold chain which people of the 2025 (O&M) of satisfaction for invoking power under Section 319 of the Code, this Court observed that though the test of prima facie case bei made out is same as that when the cognizance of the offence is taken and process issued, the degree of satisfaction under Section 319 of the Code is much higher.” To appreciate the legality of impugned order, it would be relevant to refer to the version in the FIR. Complainant alleged therein President of East Mohan Nagar Park Society. there was a meeting of the locality. At the time of meeting Shehzada and Parminder Singh Chauhan son of Hardip Singh started arguing with each other for forming new members. He tried to make them understand Babu and Ravikant instigated Parminder Chauhan threatening him. Then, he called his son Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan associates along with weapons to the park. After some time Rajan son of Parminder Singh along with 5- with guns. Gurpreet Singh @ Raj immediately raised a lalk He tried to pacify him and told that the meeting be kept for some but Parminder Singh Chauhan and his son Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan along with their accomplices forcibly stopped his hand, held pistol on his face which hit left side of his nose started thrashing him, inflicted wounds and also threatened to kill him. During this, someone took gold chain which he was wearing in his neck. On seeing people of the locality gathering, they ran from the spot with their weapons. -4- of satisfaction for invoking power under Section 319 of the Code, this Court observed that though the test of prima facie case bei made out is same as that when the cognizance of the offence is taken and process issued, the degree of satisfaction under Section ” To appreciate the legality of impugned order, it would be relevant omplainant alleged therein that he was . On 28.05.2020 at about 6:30 PM, there was a meeting of the locality. At the time of meeting, residents namely son of Hardip Singh started arguing with each other for forming new members. He tried to make them understand Parminder Chauhan who, in anger started . Then, he called his son Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan to call more associates along with weapons to the park. After some time, Gurpreet Singh @ -6 unknown persons came in a car with guns. Gurpreet Singh @ Raj immediately raised a lalkara and started ried to pacify him and told that the meeting be kept for some but Parminder Singh Chauhan and his son Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan along with their accomplices forcibly stopped him. Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan hit his hand, held pistol on his face which hit left side of his nose. Other persons inflicted wounds and also threatened to kill him. During he was wearing in his neck. On seeing locality gathering, they ran from the spot with their weapons. of satisfaction for invoking power under Section 319 of the Code, this Court observed that though the test of prima facie case being made out is same as that when the cognizance of the offence is taken and process issued, the degree of satisfaction under Section To appreciate the legality of impugned order, it would be relevant that he was n 28.05.2020 at about 6:30 PM, namely son of Hardip Singh started arguing with each other for forming new members. He tried to make them understand who, in anger started to call more Gurpreet Singh @ came in a car ra and started ried to pacify him and told that the meeting be kept for some but Parminder Singh Chauhan and his son Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan hit . Other persons inflicted wounds and also threatened to kill him. During he was wearing in his neck. On seeing KAPIL 2026.07.16 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1307-2025 7. There can be no Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add additional accused only on the adduced before it and sheet or the case diary police during investigation can be summoned as additional accused there is credible evidence showing their involvement in the offence found worthy of petitioner/complainant is satisfies the test laid down in (supra), his statement needs to be referred. He stated that residents of locality in the park, during which Shehzada and Parminder Singh Chauhan to make them understand and on the instigation of Innderjit Singh @ Babbu and Ravikant aggressive and started sbusing him and threatened him saying “Pardhangi ki hundi Ae” Babbu, Ravikant accused Parwinder Singh Chauhan called his son Gurpreet Singh @ R companions saying that they will finish him and kill him. After some time, Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan @ Billa alongwith his 5 companions came to the spot on his car, armed with deadly weapons. When Singh @ Babbu 2025 (O&M) There can be no denying that the Court can invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add additional accused only on the adduced before it and is not to rely upon the sheet or the case diary. Even those persons police during investigation can be summoned as additional accused there is credible evidence showing their involvement in the offence found worthy of acceptance. To determine whether complainant is satisfies the test laid down in his statement needs to be referred. He stated that “On 28.05.2020 at about 6:30 PM he called meeting of residents of locality in the park, during which Shehzada and Parminder Singh Chauhan entered into verbal altercation. He tried to make them understand and on the instigation of Innderjit Singh @ Babbu and Ravikant, Parwinder Singh Chauhan aggressive and started sbusing him and threatened him saying “Pardhangi ki hundi Ae”. On the instigation of Inderjit Singh @ Babbu, Ravikant accused Parwinder Singh Chauhan called his son Gurpreet Singh @ R companions saying that they will finish him and kill him. After some time, Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan @ Billa alongwith his 5 companions came to the spot on his car, armed with deadly weapons. When they reached, they Singh @ Babbu and Ravikant -5- denying that the Court can invoke powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add additional accused only on the basis of evidence is not to rely upon the material available on the charge ven those persons, who have been dropped by the police during investigation can be summoned as additional accused, provided there is credible evidence showing their involvement in the offence, which is acceptance. To determine whether evidence of the complainant is satisfies the test laid down in Hardeep Singh case his statement needs to be referred. He stated that: 20 at about 6:30 PM he called meeting of residents of locality in the park, during which Shehzada and entered into verbal altercation. He tried to make them understand and on the instigation of Innderjit Singh , Parwinder Singh Chauhan became aggressive and started sbusing him and threatened him saying . On the instigation of Inderjit Singh @ Babbu, Ravikant accused Parwinder Singh Chauhan telephonically called his son Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan @ Billa alongwith his companions saying that they will finish him and kill him. After some time, Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan @ Billa alongwith his 5 companions came to the spot on his car, armed with deadly they started abusing him. Inderjit also instigated to kill him. He powers under of evidence material available on the charge who have been dropped by the , provided ch is evidence of the Hardeep Singh case 20 at about 6:30 PM he called meeting of residents of locality in the park, during which Shehzada and entered into verbal altercation. He tried to make them understand and on the instigation of Innderjit Singh became aggressive and started sbusing him and threatened him saying . On the instigation of Inderjit Singh @ telephonically ajan @ Billa alongwith his companions saying that they will finish him and kill him. After some time, Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan @ Billa alongwith his 5-6 companions came to the spot on his car, armed with deadly Inderjit hit KAPIL 2026.07.16 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1307-2025 him on his nose with other accused also caused injuries to him. Then accused Inderjit Singh @ Babu Singh snatched his gold neck chain, whereafter all restrained him from leaving the spot and when people of the 8. The power conferred on the be exercised only to achieve the ends of justice and the Court cannot be to turn against any person whenever it another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping in view the evidence of the witness examined report to the police. sparingly only for compelling reasons, which justify taking cognizance against persons who have been found innocent by the police. 9. Considering first version of the complainant, his evidence in the trial and all relevant facts and cir considered view that it is not a case in which the Court could be compel take cognizance 10. Although the names of respondents No.2 and 3 do find mention in the FIR, the only who became enraged @ Rajan over the phone along with his associates in the park. In what manner, Interjit Singh @ Babu 2025 (O&M) him on his nose with butt of his pistol other accused also caused injuries to him. Then accused Inderjit Singh @ Babu, Ravikant, Gurpreet Singh @ Singh snatched his gold neck chain, whereafter all restrained him from leaving the spot and when people of they fled ………” The power conferred on the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C be exercised only to achieve the ends of justice and the Court cannot be to turn against any person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping e evidence of the witness examined report to the police. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C sparingly only for compelling reasons, which justify taking cognizance against persons who have been found innocent by the police. Considering first version of the complainant, his evidence in the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the considered view that it is not a case in which the Court could be compel cognizance against respondents No.2 and 3. Although the names of respondents No.2 and 3 do find mention in only role attributed to them is that they instigated Parwinder Singh, enraged and while threatening him Rajan over the phone along with his associates in the park. In what manner, Interjit Singh @ Babu and Ravikant instigated the complainant -6- butt of his pistol leading to bleeding. All other accused also caused injuries to him. Then accused Inderjit , Ravikant, Gurpreet Singh @ Billa and Parwinder Singh snatched his gold neck chain, whereafter all restrained him from leaving the spot and when people of society started gathering Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised only to achieve the ends of justice and the Court cannot be swayed comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping e evidence of the witness examined, in the back drop of the first he power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly only for compelling reasons, which justify taking cognizance against persons who have been found innocent by the police. Considering first version of the complainant, his evidence in the cumstances of the case, the Court is of the considered view that it is not a case in which the Court could be compelled against respondents No.2 and 3. Although the names of respondents No.2 and 3 do find mention in role attributed to them is that they instigated Parwinder Singh, and while threatening him, called his son Gurpreet Singh Rajan over the phone along with his associates in the park. In what manner, instigated the complainant has not been bleeding. All other accused also caused injuries to him. Then accused Inderjit Billa and Parwinder Singh snatched his gold neck chain, whereafter all restrained him society started gathering, . is to swayed comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping of the first . should be used sparingly only for compelling reasons, which justify taking cognizance against Considering first version of the complainant, his evidence in the cumstances of the case, the Court is of the to Although the names of respondents No.2 and 3 do find mention in role attributed to them is that they instigated Parwinder Singh, his son Gurpreet Singh Rajan over the phone along with his associates in the park. In what manner, has not been KAPIL 2026.07.16 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-1307-2025 elaborated anywhere. What @ Babbu and Ravi Kant have also not been the complainant in the Court is much improved over his first version. The version that Inderjit Singh @ Babbu Singh @ Rajan and other accused to kill, upon which Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan hit him on the nose with butt of pistol is report. Further, the with Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan and Parwinder Singh, from his neck is also improved. The before the Court learned Additional Sessions Judge said that more than a prima facie case and 3 by invoking powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 11. There is no apparent defect in the impugned order nor any manifest illegality resulting in miscarriage of justice, warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 12. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. 15.07.2026 Kapil 2025 (O&M) elaborated anywhere. What were the precise words used by said Inderjit Singh and Ravi Kant have also not been spelled the complainant in the Court is much improved over his first version. The Inderjit Singh @ Babbu and Ravikant Singh @ Rajan and other accused to kill, upon which Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan him on the nose with butt of pistol is conspicuously report. Further, the version that Inderjit Singh @ Babbu Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan and Parwinder Singh, from his neck is also improved. The embellish before the Court regarding respondents No.2 and 3 learned Additional Sessions Judge. From the material on record, it cannot be said that more than a prima facie case is made out to summon respondents No.2 and 3 by invoking powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. There is no apparent defect in the impugned order nor any manifest illegality resulting in miscarriage of justice, warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -7- the precise words used by said Inderjit Singh spelled out. The statement made by the complainant in the Court is much improved over his first version. The and Ravikant also instigated Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan and other accused to kill, upon which Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan conspicuously missing in the first Inderjit Singh @ Babbu and Ravikant along Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan and Parwinder Singh, snatched his gold chain embellished version of the complainant regarding respondents No.2 and 3 was rightly discarded by . From the material on record, it cannot be made out to summon respondents No.2 and 3 by invoking powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. There is no apparent defect in the impugned order nor any manifest illegality resulting in miscarriage of justice, warranting exercise of revisional The revision petition is hereby dismissed. SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No the precise words used by said Inderjit Singh out. The statement made by the complainant in the Court is much improved over his first version. The also instigated Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan and other accused to kill, upon which Gurpreet Singh @ Rajan in the first along snatched his gold chain version of the complainant was rightly discarded by . From the material on record, it cannot be made out to summon respondents No.2 There is no apparent defect in the impugned order nor any manifest illegality resulting in miscarriage of justice, warranting exercise of revisional SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) KAPIL 2026.07.16 19:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document