Crl.R.No.2818 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.R.No.2818 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:October 12, 2010 Harbhajan Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.54086 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.R.No.2818 of 2010(O&M) The present revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is against the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the prosecution, co-accused Gurbaksh Kaur, mother-in-law of the deceased has been summoned to face trial alongwith accused, i.e. husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law, already facing trial and however, request of prosecution to summon Amandeep Kaur, respondent no.2, i.e., married sister-in-law of the deceased, also an accused has been declined. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which request of prosecution to summon Amandeep Kaur, respondent no.2 as well to face trial alongwith co-accused was dismissed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, while dismissing the request of prosecution to summon Amandeep Kaur, respondent no.2 as an accused observed as under:- Crl.R.No.2818 of 2010 (O&M) -2- “ It was admitted by PW1 Harbhajan Singh that Amandeep Kaur is a married daughter of accused Bakshi Ram. Her marriage was solemnized three years earlier to the marriage of Gurvinder Kaur daughter of the complainant. It was suggested that house of her in-laws is 30 kilometer from the house of her parents. In these circumstances, it cannot be believed that accused Amandeep Kaur would have raised such demand of car because she was not going to be benefited from it because she was already married and living in the house of her in-laws for the last three years earlier to the marriage of deceased Gurvinder Kaur.” Hence, sufficient reasons have been given by learned Additional Sessions Judge for declining request of prosecution to summon respondent no.2-Amandeep Kaur, married sister-in-law of the deceased as well an accused. There are only vague allegations against her. In these days it is general tendency to involve all the family members of the in-laws in the occurrence of this type. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in dismissing the request of prosecution to summon respondent no.2- Amandeep Kaur as an additional accused, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. However, it is made clear that nothing observed in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on decision of this case on merit. 12.10.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge