Crl. Rev. No.1048 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.1048 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.04.2009 Reema ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 7th February, 2009, passed by the Revisional Court (Additional Sessions Judge), Faridabad, whereby an application for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was rejected. Brief facts of the case are that prosecutrix was married to accused Raj son of Keshav on 20th February, 2007. Soon after marriage, the prosecutrix came to know that accused Raj was already married to another girl and was having a son from her. The prosecutrix thus lodged a complaint with the police alleging that the factum of previous marriage was concealed from her and she was kept in dark about it. Marriage with her was performed only for greed of dowry. She also alleged that his whole family was involved in the conspiracy. The complainant further alleged that she had been subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and rape had also been committed on her as she was Crl. Rev. No.1048 of 2008 2 kept in dark about previous marriage of Raj. After investigation, the police presented challan against three accused namely, Keshav alias Kailash, Arun and Raj alias Raju. It appears that after the trial commenced, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved to summon six additional accused. The application was, however, dismissed on 29.7.2008. After testimony of PW7 Gajna i.e. mother of the complainant was recorded, another application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved for summoning the same accused as sought for in the earlier application. The relevant portion of the testimony of PW7 Gajna, on the basis of which summoning of additional accused is sought, reads thus: “Relatives of Raju namely, Rani, Kamlesh, Munish, Aarti, Suman, Arun, Manbir, Radha and Raj and his father harass my daughter and demanded dowry. Raju is having a son from his first marriage. Raju married my daughter in greed of dowry. Prior to the marriage Rani, Kamlesh, Munich, Aarti, Suman, Arun, Radha and Manvir Keshav and Raj came to see my daughter. They never disclosed about the previous marriage of Raj.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on the basis of evidence of PW7, additional accused ought to have been summoned by the trial court. A grave error has been committed by the court below by rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as name of the additional accused figure in the statement of PW7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Crl. Rev. No.1048 of 2008 3 It is evident that the testimony of PW7 Gajna only shows that the allegations against the persons named therein is that they had come to see her daughter at the time when proposal for marriage was being considered and they did not disclose the factum of previous marriage of Raj. In my considered view, this deposition will not suffice for summoning the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The trial court rightly came to the conclusion that at best such an application would lead to be an inference of commission of crime under Section 494 IPC which is non-cognizable. Even otherwise, the deposition of PW7 does not show that she had attributed any active role to the persons sought to be summoned for the commission of crime. In Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2000) 3 SCC 262, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- “The basic requirement of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that the court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected during trial or in the inquiry regarding two aspects: First, that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case has committed an offence. Second, that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. It is not enough that the court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence.” In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, I do not find it a fit case for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this court. Crl. Rev. No.1048 of 2008 4 I thus find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE April 27, 2009 'rajpal'