Crl. Revn. No. 2236 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Revn. No. 2236 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 10, 2009 Kuldeep .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sunil Saharan, Advocate for Mr. Jatinder Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 44913 of 2009 : Application is allowed and amended `Memo of Parties' is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Kuldeep complainant has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 08.07.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Hisar thereby dismissing the prosecution application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for summoning Santosh – respondent no.2 as additional accused to face trial along with her brother Vinod and parents Chander Singh and Santro, who Crl. Revn. No. 2236 of 2009 (O&M) 2 were challaned by the police in case FIR No. 119 dated 17.04.2008, under Sections 120-B, 201, 304-B, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar. According to prosecution version, marriage of Jaswanti @ Sunehri – sister of petitioner-complainant was solemnized with Vinod- accused on 20.05.2007. All the three accused, who have been challaned by the police, as well as respondent no.2, had been making demands of dowry and cash and had been harassing Jaswanti @ Sunehri (since deceased) for the same. Some demands were even met by the petitioner's family, but the accused and respondent no.2 were not satisfied. Ultimately, on the night between 15/16.04.2008, Jaswanti @ Sunehri was killed and she was cremated without informing her parental family. On investigation, Santosh – respondent no.2 was found to be innocent, whereas the other three accused were challaned by the police. During trial, Ishwar Singh – father of the deceased appeared as PW-1 and broadly reiterated the prosecution version. Thereafter, the prosecution filed application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Santosh – respondent no.2 also as additional accused. The said application had been dismissed by the trial Judge vide impugned order dated 08.07.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent no.2, who is sister of husband of the deceased, had also been harassing the deceased for more dowry along with the three accused, who have been challaned by the police and there are specific allegations against respondent no.2 as well. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the Crl. Revn. No. 2236 of 2009 (O&M) 3 same cannot be accepted. Ishwar Singh (PW-1) – father of the deceased admitted that Santosh – respondent no.2 was married 13 years ago to one Naresh and was living with Naresh at Village Palli at a distance of 30-35 kms. from Village Sandlana, where the other three accused, challaned by the police, are residing i.e. from the matrimonial home of the deceased. Respondent no.2 is also mother of two children and her husband has his own property. In the FIR, as well as in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., all these material facts were concealed. However, it is apparent from the testimony of Ishwar Singh – father of the deceased that respondent no.2 was married almost 12 years before the marriage of the deceased and was residing in a different village, which is 30-35 kms. away from the matrimonial home of the deceased. Respondent no. 2 has her own family including her husband and two children. She was also found innocent by the police on investigation. The investigation was verified by Superintendent of Police Puran Chand. Keeping in view all these circumstances, the impugned order dismissing the prosecution application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be suffering from any grave error, illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The trial Judge has taken a reasonable view of the material on record. In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit in the instant revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. September 10, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE