Crl.Rev.No. 49 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 49 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.1.2010 Dimple ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.B.S.Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C” for short) challenging the order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, dismissing the application for summoning Baljit Kaur and Harbax Singh in FIR No.264 dated 8.12.2003 registered at Police Station Jagraon under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR in question was registered against Major Singh and others. Baljit Kaur and Harbax Singh were not sent up for trial after investigation of the case. During trial an application was moved Crl.Rev.No. 49 of 2010 (O&M) 2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Baljit Kaur and Harbax Singh to face the trial as accused. Vide the impugned order, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was sufficient material on record against Baljit Kaur and Harbax Singh that they had also participated in the alleged crime. Hence, the trial Court had erred in not summoning them to face the trial. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves dismissal. Baljit Kaur is the married sister-in-law of the complainant. Harbax Singh is the husband of Baljit Kaur. Marriage of the petitioner was performed with Major Singh on 24.5.2001. Thereafter, Major Singh left for California. The petitioner was, however, not taken to California by her husband. Hence, a matrimonial dispute arose between the petitioner and her in-laws. The allegations levelled against sister-in-law Banjit Kaur and her husband Harbax Singh are general in nature. Once the matrimonial relations between the couple become sour then there is a tendency to rope in all the relatives of the husband in criminal proceedings. Learned trial Court has passed the impugned order by exercising jurisdiction vested in it and came to the conclusion that there was no specific allegations against Baljit Kaur and Harbax Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of Crl.Rev.No. 49 of 2010 (O&M) 3 arguments, has failed to convince this Court that the impugned order had been passed by the trial Court on erroneous considerations. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is based on sound reasons and calls for no interference by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE January 12, 2010 anita