IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1153 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 8, 2011 RAJENDER & ANR. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Surinder Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition is directed against order dated 13.3.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat, whereby application filed by the prosecution under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been allowed and the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial. Petitioner No.1-Rajender is father-in-law of deceased-Usha and petitioner No.2-Meena is the sister-in-law of the deceased. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the petition on behalf of petitioner No.1. 3 In regard to petitioner No.2-Meena, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Meena was married to Ram Niwas in the year 2001. The deceased was married to Dharmender son Criminal Revision No.1153 of 2010 2 of Rajender in the year 2006. Meena was living 70 kilometers away from the matrimonial home of the deceased and, therefore, had no occasion to maltreat the deceased. It has further been contended that there are no specific allegations as against Meena, so as to justify summoning her as an additional accused. 4 I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 Investigation was conducted under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as regards the role played by Meena-petitioner No.2. No incriminating evidence could be found. During trial, statement of Ram Kishan, father of the deceased, was recorded as PW-1. In examination-in-chief, vague allegations have been made that petitioner No.2 along with other accused used to give beatings to the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. It has, however, not been shown as to under what circumstances, petitioner No.2, who was married and was living in her matrimonial home, happened to be present in her parents' house. 6 Allegations of receipt of articles; namely, Refrigerator and cooler, have been made, however, in cross-examination, the witness states that he did not remember the date when the articles were given. In cross-examination, the witness admits that petitioner No.2 is married in Village Gangoli, District Jind, whereas the deceased was living in District Sonipat. Petitioner No.2 has three school going children. 7 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Criminal Revision No.1153 of 2010 3 I am convinced that petitioner No.2 has been implicated only because she happens to be sister-in-law of the deceased. Petitioner No.2 was married 5 years prior to the marriage of the deceased. Admittedly, she had been living in her matrimonial home and this enforces the opinion of the Court that there has been an endeavour to implicate all the family members. Even during investigation, no incriminating material could be traced as against petitioner No.2. 8 In view of the above, this petition is allowed in part. 9 The petition on behalf of petitioner No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. 10 Impugned order dated 13.3.2010 is quashed as regards petitioner No.2-Meena daughter of Rajender wife of Shri Ram Niwas, resident of Village Gangoli, District Jind. July 8, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?