IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2344 of 2003 Date of Decision 23.09.2010 Satbir ...... Petitioner VERSUS Mohindro Devi and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Harsh Garg, Advocate,for Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Rattu, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.2-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: Aggrieved against the order dated 09.08.2003, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, partly allowing the revision petition qua Satbir Singh against the order dated 13.07.2002, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of Satbir and Giano Devi as accused, the petitioner has preferred this petition. Having examined the complaint and the statement of Mohindro Devi, it transpires that the accused were taunting Mohindro Devi for not bringing adequate dowry. Mohindro Devi used to regret that they were given dowry as per the capacity of her parents and they could not give more dowry. The complainant, while appearing in the witness box, reiterated the allegations. At the stage of summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court need not reach the conclusion whether the petitioner would be ultimately convicted or acquitted but it was to see if prima facie there was sufficient evidence against him for which he could be tried. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. However, the presence of the petitioner is exempted on the material dates of the trial and the trial Court would be at liberty to summon him on any date when it requires. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 23.09.2010 mamta-II