Crl. Rev. No. 2185 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 2185 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: January 11, 2010 Jeewan .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana and another ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Dr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sanjeev, Advocate, for respondent no. 2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) The petition has been filed in challenge to order dated 21.04.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby the application of the complainant filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondent Krishan Kumar s/o Shri Gugan as additional accused has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in a short contention, contends that respondent-Krishan Kumar was considered as father-in-law of deceased Manju and, therefore, there is sufficient material/evidence to indicate culpability of the said respondent and, therefore, the application under Section 319 should have been allowed. Crl. Rev. No. 2185 of 2009 2 I have considered the contention and the issue involved in the context of findings recorded by the Trial Court. The Trial Court dismissed the application while taking into account:- (a) That the basis of initiation of prosecution is the statement of deceased Manju which was recorded by the Magistrate on 30.08.2008. Manju specifically deposed that on 29.08.2008 her mother-in-law caught her from the hands, her father-in-law poured kerosene oil and her husband put her on fire. (b) During the course of investigation, mother-in-law Brahmi and husband Raj Kumar were arrested and are facing trial. In the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., it has been concluded by the investigating agency that father-in-law of the deceased namely Om Parkash had died on 25.05.1984. (c ) The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by Jeewan, brother of the deceased Manju. Jeewan was associated as a witness in investigation and gave a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Jeewan has also mentioned the name of father-in-law of Manju as Om Parkash. Contrary to the investigation record, Jeewan appeared as PW-1 during the course of trial and has mentioned the name of the father-in-law as Krishan Kumar. In such circumstances, the Trial Court has concluded that it is an improvement. It is the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court that is relevant during the course of trial. I find that the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court is based on relevant material. No illegality or irregularity can be traced therein. Relevant material has been considered before dismissing the application. Crl. Rev. No. 2185 of 2009 3 No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. 11.01.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE