IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.488 of 2008 Date of Order: 13.03.2008 Manisha ...Petitioner Versus Shalesh & Another. ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.S.K.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J. The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Court below whereby in an application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Court below did not find sufficient material on record to summon Shalesh to stand trial in FIR No.7 dated 04.01.2007 under Sections 365/376/328/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mohindergarh. The petitioner in the present case was already married, but was staying with her parents. She had not taken any divorce from her husband. In the night of 14/15.12.2006 she left her parent’s home of her own and went straight away to the house of Balesh and stayed there till next morning. On 15.12.2006 Balesh arranged a rented accommodation for her at Mohindergarh in the house of Moti Lal. On 23.12.2006 she got her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with the police stating that she had taken divorce from her earlier husband Vikash and was now re- married to one Dinesh. After investigation, police presented a challan against Balesh and Shalesh was found to be innocent. Before the Court below while filing application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking Criminal Revision No.488 of 2008 -2- summoning of Shalesh, there was no material except the statement of the petitioner reiterating what was stated at the time of registration of the FIR. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances, learned Court below did not find sufficient material on record to show the involvement of Shalesh to justify his summoning. Perusal of the impugned order shows that in the statement got recorded by the petitioner on 23.12.2006, she had made allegations even against her parents to the effect that they had attempted to liquidate her and even her husband and his other family members are criminals. Keeping in view the above factual matrix, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Court below. The present petition is dismissed. March 13, 2008 (RAJESH BINDAL) nt JUDGE