1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1620 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.7.2009 *** Wazir Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Jagir Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 15.5.2009 passed by the learned trial court by virtue of which his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning and trial of Jagir Singh, Resham Singh and Darshna Rani along with other accused has been dismissed. The petitioner got instituted a criminal complaint with the allegations that the marriage of complainant's daughter namely Baljit Kaur was solemnized with Gurnam Singh. Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage but being dis-satisfied with the same, her in-laws started maltreating her. According to the allegations in the complaint Gurnam Singh, the husband, Resham Singh, Taranjit Kaur, the brother and his wife respectively, Mohinder Kaur, Jagir Singh, the mother-in-law and father-in- law respectively and Darshana Rani, the sister-in-law murdered his daughter by administering some poisonous substance. On these broad allegations, the complaint case filed in the Court arraying as many as six persons as accused therein, namely Gurnam Singh, Taranjit Kaur, Resham Singh, Mohinder Kaur, Jagir Singh and Darshana Rani. In preliminary evidence the complainant examined Buta Singh as CW1, Avtar Singh CW.2, Baj Singh as CW3, himself as CW4, Darshan Singh, Dr. Parveen Dhingra, Jaspal and HC Mohinder Singh as CWs 5 to 8 respectively. The summoning Court, on appraisal of preliminary evidence adduced by the complainant, issued process against Gurnam Singh, Taranjit 2 Kaur and Mohinder Kaur only and dismissed the complaint qua remaining accused. The complainant preferred a revision before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed and the revision preferred before this Court also met with the same fate. After committal proceedings, the complainant led the evidence and examined himself as PW.1 and thereafter, he filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and sought summoning of Jagir Singh, Resham Singh and Darshna Rani as an additional accused, which has been dismissed, leading to the institution of the instant revision. From the sequel of events, narrated above, it is clear that the allegations and preliminary evidence led in support thereof in respect of respondents No.1 to 3, have already been scanned not only by the summoning Court but also by two of the revisional Courts, including this Court. The whole statement of complainant as PW.1 nowhere suggests that any new material has been produced on record as to the complicity of the private respondents in the commission of offence. Provisions of S. 319 Cr. P. C. would suggest that during the trial it has to appear from the evidence that a person not being an accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused who are also being tried. The key words in this Section are 'it appears from the evidence', 'any person', 'has committed any offence. It is not, therefore, that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of such person or that there is some material against that person, the discretion under S. 319 would be used by the Court. This is apart from the fact that such person against whom such discretion is used, should be a person who could be tried together with the accused against whom the trial is already going on. The discretion under S. 319 has to be exercised very sparingly and with caution and only when the concerned Court is satisfied that some offence has been committed by such person, which is absolutely lacking in the instant case. In the above facts, no fault could be found with the approach of the learned trial court while dismissing the application of the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The revision petition being without any merit is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 16,2009 Jiten