Crl.Revision No. 952 of 2010(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Revision No. 952 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:March 29, 2010 Mohd. Illiyas ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana *** GURDEV SINGH, J. This revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by Mohd. Illiyas-petitioner, against order dated 11.7.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which his prayer for summoning Rabina, Jahira and Alliyas as additional accused has been declined. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner got registered FIR No. 88 dated 8.7.2007 against Anish, to whom his daughter-Samsad, was married and the relations of that husband. He narrated therein that this marriage was performed on 14.6.2006 and after the marriage, Anish, Crl.Revision No. 952 of 2010(O&M) {2} husband of his deceased daughter, Father-in-law Juhru, mother-in-law Akhtari, elder brother-in-law Alliyas, sister-in-law Rabina @ Rava and wife of the elder brother-in-law Jahira used to harass her for bringing less dowry. He had given Rs. 30,000/- to those accused after some days still they had been harassing her for bringing less dowry. They had been raising a demand of Rs. 1,25,000/- and one Alto car. She used to tell the complainant and her other family members that there is danger to her life if the demands of the accused were not fulfilled. Ultimately, a message was received regarding her death on 7.7.2007. Case was investigated and after the completion of the investigation, Asgiri, Alliyas, Jahira and Rabina @ Rava were found to innocent and were not challaned. During the trial, statement of the complainant was recorded as PW-3. An application was filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoning the above said four accused as additional accused to stand their trial along with the other accused. That application was dismissed so far as Alliyas, Jahira and Rabina @ Rava are concerned. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. While exercising the powers under Section 319 of the Code, the court is to go into two aspects, (i) that the person not standing the trial before the court appears to have committed an offence, from the evidence produced before the court, (ii) that for that offence he is liable to be tried along with the other accused. It is now well settled that power so vested in the court is to be exercised sparingly and in an extra ordinary circumstances. There must be compelling reasons to summon that person as an additional accused. The evidence produce before the court must be looked from the angle that the conviction of that person can be recorded on Crl.Revision No. 952 of 2010(O&M) {3} the basis thereof. The power is to be exercised with caution and with circumspection. Summoning order is not be passed merely on the ground that name of such a person figures in the evidence produced by the prosecution. onerous duty is caste upon the court to scrutinize the evidence meticulously in order to verify if the above said conditions are fulfilled before summoning the additional accused. The petitioner is relying upon his own statement made before the Court as PW-3. In that statement, he has stated that his daughter was not kept nicely and properly by Anish-accused and his family members, Akhtari, Zuhru, Alliyas and Rabina @Rava and Zahira. They used to harass his daughter for not having brought sufficient dowry as per their expectations and they used to demand more dowry in the form of one Alto car and Rs. 1,25,000/-. The accused persisted with their continuous harassment and torture in spite of the request made by him not to do so. He was informed by his daughter that harassment was inflicted upon her by the accused for want of dowry. That statement was duly gone into by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while not allowing the application regarding Zahira, Alliyas and Rabina @ Rava. He also took into consideration the fact that these persons had not been residing with the husband of the deceased, though they are related to him. Photostat copies of the ration cards were produced and on the basis thereof it was found by the Additional Sessions Judge that they had been living separate from the other family members. In addition to that, he also took into consideration the factum of common knowledge that there is tendency on the part of the family members of the deceased to rope in all the family members. In order to satisfy himself, before exercising power under Crl.Revision No. 952 of 2010(O&M) {4} Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Additional Sessions Judge was competent to go into the documents filed along with the reply to the application filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., in order to see if the above said tests were satisfied or not. He did not commit any illegality while bringing-in-aid the experience acquired by him as judicial officer by observing that it is matter of common knowledge that in such like cases, there is tendency to rope in all the family members. It cannot be said that this order suffers from any illegality or is incorrect or that the propriety required that the same should not have been passed. Therefore, it cannot be interfered with while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE March 29, 2010 PARAMJIT