IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.690  OF 2011 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.)NO.3249 OF 2010)

STATE OF HARYANA ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

SURESH @ PAPPU ... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The  High  Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  by  the  impugned  

judgment and order dated 20.08.2009 in Criminal Revision No.2217 of  

2008,  has quashed the application of the Prosecution under Section  

319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The State of Haryana, aggrieved by the impugned judgment  

and order, has  approached this Court by filing this Special Leave  

Petition.

4. Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  State  has  drawn  our  

attention to the statement of Prosecution Witness No.3-Dharambir,  

S/o.Tarkha Ram. In that statement it is clearly stated that “my  

brother was murdered by Suresh and Sombir”.  In the statement it is  

also indicated that “Suresh got 7.5 acres of land of Sombir sold by  

misguiding him and serving liquor.  Whenever Sombir used to ask him  

to pay money, he used to promise to give next day or thereafter.  

Thereafter, we insisted upon Suresh to give money”.  This clearly  

reflect the motive for committing the crime.

: 2 :

5. In view of this clear and categoric statement of P.W.NO.3-

Dharambir,  the  High  Court  was  not  justified  in  quashing  the  

Prosecution Application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure for summoning Suresh @ Pappu.   

6. Consequently, we are constrained to set aside the impugned  

judgment and order of the High Court passed in Criminal Revision  

No.2217 of 2008.  Whatever has been observed by us in this order is  

only  confined  to  adjudication  of  this  petition  which  should  not  

prejudice the accused in any manner in the trial.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

...................J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

...................J. (DEEPAK VERMA)

NEW DELHI; 9TH MARCH, 2011