1 Bagh Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.971/2008 DATE OF ORDER : 01.04. 2009 HON'BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J. Mr.J.R.Beniwal for the petitioner. Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi , Public Prosecutor. Mr.Dhirendra Singh for respondent No.2. This revision petition has been filed by the complainant petitioner against the order dated 01.08.2008 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge ( Fast Track), Jalore, Camp Bhinmal passed in Sessions Case No.80/07 (41/07) by which the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 319 Cr.P.C. The brief facts of the case are that a case has been registered on the complaint made by the petitioner on 03.11.07 at Police Station Karda , District Jalore stating interalia that his sister Desh Kanwar (deceased) married to respondent No.2. 2 Deep Singh near about 20- 22 years back , as per Hindu rituals. He has further stated in the report that after two years of marriage, she was harassed and maltreated on account of insufficient dowry and due to that for near about 10- 12 years, his sister remained with him. After that, due to intervention of the local elderly people, she was again shifted to her inlaws' house. But still, she was harassed and ill treated by her husband , her mother inlaw and the second wife of her husband. It is alleged that during this period, her husband contracted second marriage also. It is also alleged in the report that thereafter, she committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting fire. On the basis of this report, a case under section 498-A and 306 IPC was registered and investigation started. After investigation, police filed challaned only against Deep Singh. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, from where the case was transferred to the court of concerned Addl.District & Sessions Judge ( Fast Track), where charges were framed, accused denied the charges and claimed trial. It further revealed that from the side of prosecution, 3 statement of 11 witnesses were got recorded. Thereafter, on 16.07.08 the complainant petitioner moved an application under section 319 Cr.P.C., stating interalia that his sister was harassed on account of insufficient dowry not only by Deep Singh but her mother inlaw Antar Kanwar and the second wife of Deep Singh, Shobhag Kanwar also harassed and ill-treated her. Narrating detailed facts in the application, a prayer was made to implead them as accused persons and a request was made to take cognizance and summon them. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the application, vide order dated 01.08.08 did not find the involvement of these persons in the commission of crime and hence vide the said order he rejected the application filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed. Notice of this revision petition was issued to respondents , record was called and arguments were heard. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds stated in the application and submitted that the learned trial court , without thoroughly considering the grounds mentioned in the application and the 4 allegations made in the evidence during trial, wrongly rejected the said application filed by the petitioner to add Antar Kanwar and Shobhag Kanwar in the array of accused. During the course of arguments, he drew my attention towards the statement of the witnesses and other material available on record and on the strength of the statements of the witnesses, again a request was made to set aside the impugned order and to allow the revision. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2, refuted the contention placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the order passed by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that it has rightly been concluded by the learned trial court that there was no sufficient material to implead them as accused. He further submitted that at present the case is at final stage. The statements of total prosecution witnesses , the statement of the accused and the defence witnesses have been recorded . The petitioner has filed this petition with an ulterior motive only to prolong the case. He also submitted that under section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking 5 cognizance, there must be a strong and reliable evidence on which it could be inferred that there was involvement of the persons of whom prayer is made to summon. But in this case, from the side of prosecution, nothing of this sort of material is on record. The order passed by the learned trial court, is not suffering from any infirmity and irregularity, that should be maintained and the revision should be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the impugned order, as well as the material available on record. As the case is pending for final disposal thus, detailed discussion of facts will not be in the interest of any party. But from the perusal of the evidence, I do not find the involvement of these two persons in the commission of offence. From the side of prosecution, PW/1 Parakash Kanwar, who is the daughter inlaw of the deceased, has appeared. She has denied the allegations of harassment and maltreatment. Further she has stated that her mother inlaw was mentally weak. I have also perused the statements of other witnesses but they have 6 also not supported the allegations levelled by the petitioner for taking cognizance and summoning these persons. I have also perused the impugned order. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the statements of the witnesses and thereafter, did not find involvement of the alleged persons. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said order . For taking cognizance and summoning person under section 319 Cr.P.C., it is settled law that these extra ordinary powers should be used with extra care and caution. The learned trial court has properly exercised his power in rejecting the application, that does not require any interference and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that the learned trial court will not be influenced by any observations made in this order. (MANAK MOHTA) J. l.george