Crl. Revision No.550 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No.550 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.9.2009 Jasbir Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a revision petition impugning the order dated 18th December, 2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order on the ground that no fresh evidence had come before the trial court to order summoning of the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. According to the counsel, the trial court had even taken into consideration the statements of PWs under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioners were required to be summoned as additional accused. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has, on the other Crl. Revision No.550 of 2009 2 hand, submitted that Jaswant Singh, father of the deceased, had stepped into the witness-box and clearly deposed that the petitioners had been harassing his daughter for demand of dowry, due to which she ended her life on 3rd March, 2008. Learned counsel has further submitted that the police had wrongly given a clean chit to the petitioners despite the fact that petitioners were named even in the initial version by the complainant. This apart, admittedly, the deceased was residing with her in-laws (the petitioners herein). According to the counsel, she was being harassed by them for demand of dowry due to which she ended her life. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in view of statement of PW1, the petitioners have rightly been summoned as additional accused by the trial court to face trial. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. PW1 Jaswant Singh, who stepped into the witness-box, submitted before the court that after two months of marriage of his daughter Ranjit Kaur to Barinder Singh, her husband as well as her father-in-law and mother-in-law started harassing her and subjected her to cruelty. The demand of car was raised by them. He told them that he was a poor person and unable to meet their demands. Still he gave Rs.20,000/- to his daughter to be given to her in-laws. However, his daughter was subjected to continuous harassment. She was told that her husband would leave her and his second marriage would be arranged. Crl. Revision No.550 of 2009 3 The complainant alongwith relatives and Satnam Singh, who had arranged the alliance, had gone to the in-laws of her daughter and requested them not to harass his daughter. However, again a demand for car was raised by them. On 3.3.2008 at about 11.30 P.M., the complainant was informed by his son-in-law that his daughter was admitted in Civil Hospital, Batala. He rushed to Batala where he found dead-body of his daughter lying on a bed in the hospital. The complainant thereafter lodged a complaint with the police and narrated the entire harassment meted out to his daughter due to which she had ended her life. I have perused the order, passed by the court below as well as statement of Jaswant Singh PW1, Annexure P-5 annexed to the petition. I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial. It is inexplicable as to how the police exonerated the petitioners in its investigation. The complainant even in his initial version, which formed the basis of FIR, had clearly alleged that his daughter was subjected to harassment by the petitioners and she ended her life due to that reason. In fact, the deceased is stated to have been living in her matrimonial home alongwith the petitioners. Her husband being in Army, only came home for two months in a year as is evident from part cross-examination of PW1. Since the deceased was living with the petitioners, the allegation that she was being subjected to harassment by them, ultimately resulting in her death, cannot be said to be unbelievable or improbable. In other words, there Crl. Revision No.550 of 2009 4 is evidence available against the petitioners requiring them to be arraigned as accused and to face trial under Section 304-B IPC. As regards contention of the counsel that trial court has taken into consideration even statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other irrelevant material, I find no force in the same. A perusal of the order shows that primarily reliance has been placed on evidence of Jaswant Singh, father of the deceased, who stepped into the witness-box as PW-1. The reference to statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material by the trial court is only in passing. In my considered view, statement of PW1, who had named the petitioners in his initial version also, inspires confidence for the purpose of summoning the petitioners as additional accused to face trial. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. I, thus, find no ground to interfere in inherent jurisdiction of this court for quashing of the impugned order. No other argument has been addressed. Dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 08, 2009 'rajpal'