IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1756 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 06, 2008 Kailo Devi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Naresh @ Lilwa & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) The challenge in this petition is to order dated 11.6.2008 whereby the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Beeta @ Kavita, Seema and Naresh @ Lilwa as additional accused has been dismissed. It is not in dispute that husband of deceased Nirmala Devi and father-in-law and mother-in- law of Nirmala Devi are already facing trial. After investigation, no incriminating material could be collected against respondent Nos.1 to 3, and therefore, they were shown as innocent. During the course of trial, Smt. Kailo Devi (complainant-petitioner) was examined as PW-2 whereafter the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed. Crl. Rev. No.1756 of 2008 [2] I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant to the effect that the Court is not required to see whether the persons sought to be arrayed as additional accused would in all likelihood be convicted or not. The relevant discussion in regard to the material against the respondents is contained in Para 13 to 16 of the impugned order. So far as, Seema is concerned, it has been observed that there was no specific allegation against her and she was a minor on the date of incident having been born on 12.12.1990 vis-à-vis the date of incident 2.7.2007. There is no specific entrustment of any article. I find reasons to be legally tenable. So far as Kavita @ Beeta is concerned, it has been observed that she was in advance stage of pregnancy on the date of occurrence. She delivered a child on 28.8.2007. As per the ration card which is available on the file, she had been residing with her husband and in-laws at village Harigarh Kingan. So far as Naresh @ Lilwa is concerned, he is younger brother of Ishwar, father-in-law of deceased. As per the ration card, he was residing with his family members separate from Ishwar. In my opinion, the Trial Court has taken into account the relevant material while considering the application filed by the prosecution. The relevant aspects of the case required to be considered under Section 319 Cr.P.C. have been taken into account. No Crl. Rev. No.1756 of 2008 [3] relevant material has been ignored. No illegality can be traced in the impugned order. Learned counsel wants this Court to re-appreciate the material and draw a different conclusion from the one drawn by the Trial Court. No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) November 06, 2008 JUDGE avin