1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 1085 of 2009 Date of Decision: 7.7.2009 *** Sajjan Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by the learned trial court by virtue of which his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning and trial of Smt. Urmila along with other accused has been dismissed. The marriage of sister of petitioner namely Smt. Sunita was solemnized with Bhoop Singh, the brother of Smt. Urmila on 22.2.2008. Smt. Sunita was found dead in her matrimonial house on 16.8.2008. On the basis of complaint made by the petitioner, case FIR No.129 dated 16.8.2008 was registered under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. Although the complainant in the said complaint named as many as eleven persons including father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, husband's brother and sister and some other relatives, but after investigation the challan was presented in the Court against father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law while the remaining were found innocent. During the trial, after the recording of examination-in-chief of complainant as PW.1, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning of Smt. Urmila, which, as noticed above, has been dismissed by the trial court. Hence this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the paper-book file carefully. 2 The provisions of Section 319 of the Code confers an extra ordinary power and should not be easily resorted to. It is well settled that sweep of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is limited as it is an enabling provision which can be invoked only if there is convincing evidence disclosing the complicity of the person other than the person (s) already arraigned as accused. Admittedly, Smt. Urmila is married sister of husband of deceased Smt. Sunita and is residing at a far off place in her matrimonial home. The perusal of FIR as well as examination-in-chief of complainant though reveals that the complainant has stated therein that sister-in-law was also instrumental in demand of dowry and harassment to his sister Sunita, but by merely mentioning the name of a person as an accused, criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the same. There has to be some other material on record which may prompt the Court to believe that the person so accused has complicity in the offence and her/his conviction is likely to result in the eventuality of facing the trial, which is missing in this case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75 (SC) has observed as under:- “11. The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, had committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. 12. But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words "the 3 Court may proceed against such person". The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons.” 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 7,2009 Jiten