Criminal Revision No.686 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No.686 of 2008 Date of Decision: 1.8.2008 Raghbir Singh …Petitioner Versus Dharambir alias Sanjay and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Madan Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.6-State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed assailing the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby he has refused to summon mother-in-law Pyari Devi alias Ram Pyari wife of Nafe Singh, Kaptan alias Krishan son of Nafe Singh and Kishni Devi sister of husband in the proceedings under Sections 304-B and 34 IPC. In the present case, FIR was lodged by Raghbir Singh, complainant/petitioner. In the FIR, it was stated that his daughter Sumitra was harassed on account of dowry and she committed suicide by consuming poison. The Investigating Agency has placed respondents i.e. Pyari Devi alias Ram Pyari, Kaptan alias Krishan and Kishni Devi, in column Criminal Revision No.686 of 2008 2 No.2. Raghbir Singh was examined as prosecution witness. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by summoning the respondents. The learned Judge stated in his order that Dharambir Singh had constructed a new house where he was residing with Sumitra Devi. It also surfaced in cross-examination of petitioner that Kaptan alias Krishan was serving in Bhiwani and Kishni, sister of Dharambir,aged about 50-55 years was married and residing separately. On these grounds primarily supported by the fact that Dharambir and Sumitra Devi were residing separately, respondents No. 3 to 5 were not summoned. Notice of motion was issued. Mr. Ashik Malik, Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 before me stated that wife and son of the petitioner, who were mother and brother of the deceased, in the Court have resiled from their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and have not supported the prosecution. He has drawn my attention to the statement of mother of Sumitra Devi, in which it was stated as under:- “...During her life time, neither the accused persons present in the Court nor other members of the family of in-laws of Sumitra harassed or tortured her in any manner on any account much less on account of insufficiency of dowry. Enough dowry has already been given at the time of marriage. The accused persons or any of their relations had absolutely no hand in the matter of death of my daughter Sumitra. Dharambir and my daughter and their son, used to reside in the newly constructed house at the time of Criminal Revision No.686 of 2008 3 the accident”. Counsel for the petitioner contends that even though wife and son of the petitioner have resiled yet on basis of statement of petitioner, accused should be summoned to stand trial. Taking into consideration that wife and son of the petitioner have not supported the prosecution and have stated that Sumitra Devi was not subjected to any torture on account of demand of dowry, I am of the considered view that the reasons stated by learned trial Judge in not summoning respondents No.3 to 5 are not perverse. Therefore, no interference is called for. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 1, 2008 “DK”