Crl. Revision No. 1477 of 2009(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1477 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:February 08, 2010 Kavita ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.V.S.Punia, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Raja Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana Mr. Kunal Chhokkar, Advocate, for Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5 *** GURDEV SINGH, J. This revision petition has been preferred by petitioner- complainant, Kavita against the order dated 12.5.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, dismissing the application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for summoning Raj Kumar, Krishna, Kamlesh and Kuldeep as additional accused. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present petition are Crl. Revision No. 1477 of 2009(O&M) -2- that the petitioner got lodged FIR No. 92 dated 22.7.2008 under Sections 323, 498-A, 506, 306 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. She named her husband, Rohtash and the above named persons as accused. She narrated therein that she was being harassed by her in-laws on account of demand of Rs. 20,000/- in cash. On 22.7.2008, at about 11-11.30 a.m., she was caught hold by her arms by her mother-in-law and her sister-in-law put spray (insecticide) in her mouth forcibly after her legs were hold by her husband and father-in-law. During investigation, the above named persons were found to be innocent and challan was present only against Rohtash-husband of the petitioner. He was charged for the offences under Section 307 and 498-A IPC. When the trial was in progress, statement of the complainant was recorded as PW-1 and thereafter, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 of the Code for summoning above named persons as additional accused. That application was dismissed, vide aforesaid order. Notice of the revision was given to the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant while making her statement in the Court, categorically stated that she was caught hold of by her legs by Raj Kumar and Rohtash, by her arms by Krishna and Kamlesh forcibly put spray in her mouth as a result of which she became unconscious. She also stated that she was being tortured by all the accused on the ground of demand of dowry. Inspite of the fact that these specific averments were made by the complainant in the court, the trial court did not summon Raj Kumar and others as additional accused. In order to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to set aside that order and to summon all these persons as additional accused to stand Crl. Revision No. 1477 of 2009(O&M) -3- their trial with Rohtash accused for the offences under Sections 307 and 498-A IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge passed a detailed and reasoned order while dismissing the application. He not only discussed the facts but also the law applicable to those facts before recording a finding against the prosecution. It is now well settled that the power conferred upon the court under Section 319 of the Code is discretionary. It is an extra ordinary power and should be used very sparingly only if the compelling reasons exist for taking the cognizance against the other persons against whom action has not been taken. A person should be summoned as an additional accused only when the Court finds that the evidence on record is such, which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned. This power is to be invoked not as a matter of course but in circumstances where invoking of such power is imperative to meet the ends of justice. Learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the application, took into account the version as disclosed in the FIR, statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Code and her statement made before the court itself and all the pros and cons were duly weighed. The additional accused were not to be summoned merely on the ground that they were named by the complainant. As already discussed above, the evidence produced before the court, before summoning any person as an additional accused, must be such that conviction of that person can reasonably be recorded on the basis thereof. The complainant stated in the court that the insecticide/pesticide was put in her moth forcibly after she was over Crl. Revision No. 1477 of 2009(O&M) -4- powered by the accused. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that such insecticide/pesticide has got a very pungent smell and it is very difficult to administer the same to some without using a lot of force. In case, such force is applied, that is bound to result some injury on the face; of the victim. In the present case, no injury was found on the face, which itself negatives the story put forth by the complainant. Judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that in such like cases, tendency on the part of the complainant is to throw the net wider and to rope in all the relations of the husband. Present case is the glaring example of that fact. All the relatives of the husband have been roped in by the complainant. The order of the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality and there is no ground for quashing the same. Revision petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE February 08, 2010 PARAMJIT