Criminal Revision No.421 of 2008 (1) ***** In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision : 4.4.2008. Kuljit Kaur ..... Petitioner. vs. The State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents. Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S.Madan. Present: Mr.Sushil Saini,Advocate,for the petitioner. R.S.Madan, J. Challenge herein this revision by the petitioners is to the order dated 4.10.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)- cum- Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide which he accepted the revision of the respondents herein and dismissed the application of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. An FIR No.64 dated 31.5.2005 under Sections 498-A, 406 IPC was got registered with Police Station Sadar Batala, by PW Kuljit Kaur, against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, who were facing trial before the learned trial court. During investigation, respondents Palwinder Singh (Jeth), Ranjit Kaur (sister-in-law) and Gurnam Singh (brother-in-law) have not been challaned as they were found innocent and placed in column no.2. Palwinder Singh is serving as Head Master and is posted at village Rana, Kala near Amritsar far from the matrimonial home of the complainant. The respondents were married prior to the marriage of the complainant. When the complainant was examined on 1.12.2006 in the trial court, she levelled allegations against the respondents. Therefore, they were Criminal Revision No.421 of 2008 (2) ***** summoned vide order dated 3.07.2007 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as additional accused by the trial court to face trial along with the other accused, on the ground that there were specific allegations against them as they used to taunt the complainant on account of demand of motor-cycle and harassed her for bringing insufficient dowry. The aforesaid order was challenged by the additional accused (respondents herein) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who after going through the statement of the complainant was of the view that since the respondents were married prior to the marriage of the complainant with accused Harpal Singh and would not gain anything from the alleged demand of motorcycle. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that, “the revisionists were found innocent during investigation by the police and further modern trend to implead all the near and dear of the husband, this court is of the view that the impugned order warrants reversal.” I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the orders passed by the courts below. There is no dispute that the additional accused sought to be summoned would not gain anything from the alleged demand of motorcycle. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon Poonam vs State of Punjab 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 712, wherein this court has while dealing with the allegations observed that, “there is a growing tendency to exaggerate the allegations with an objective to rope in each and every relation of the husband and this tendency needs to be curbed.” No contrary judgment has been cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner. Criminal Revision No.421 of 2008 (3) ***** The kind of allegations which have come in the statement of the complainant are of general nature and no specific role has been attributed to the additional accused which are now being sought to be summoned to stand trial alongwith the other accused. Thus, keeping in view the reasoning adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, no interference is called for in this revision, the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. 4.4.2008. (R.S.Madan) vs. Judge.