Crl. Rev. No. 2329 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No. 2329 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 1, 2009 Surinder Pal Singh and another …..Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. The petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated October 11, 2008, annexure P-1, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kapurthala, whereby the petitioners have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial for offence under Section 306 IPC as additional accused in case FIR NO. 119 dated July 16, 2002, registered at Police Station Sadar, Phagwara. The said FIR was registered at the instance of Surjit Kaur- respondent No.2, on the allegation Crl. Rev. No. 2329 of 2008 [2] that the daughter of the complainant- Baljinder Kaur was married to Iqbal Singh about 3 years back. The husband of the complainant was residing abroad and that sufficient dowry had been given at the time of marriage but in-law of Baljinder Kaur were not happy as such they were taunting and harassing the daughter of the complainant and were pressurizing her to get more dowry. They had started giving beatings to her. This fact had been told by Baljinder Kaur to the complainant. Complainant also alleged that her son-in-law had gone to Italy after the money was arranged by the complainant. Baljinder Kaur had died after taking some poisonous substance. It was alleged in the FIR that Surinder Pal Singh, father-in-law, Amarjit Kaur, mother-in-law, brother-in-law Amrit Singh and petitioner No.2-Pawandeep Kaur, sister-in-law used to taunt and harass the deceased for bringing more dowry and she had been killed by giving her poison. Matter was investigated. The prosecution did not present challan against Amrit Singh, but only challaned Amarjit Kaur, mother-in-law. Amrit Singh was also arrested but was released on bail. When challan was presented, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phagwara, vide order dated November 8, 2002 formed an opinion that Amrit Singh had prima facie committed the offence. Amrit Singh was also summoned. So far as petitioners are concerned, they were summoned by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, exercising powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without recording the evidence. The said order was set aside vide order dated September 12, 2008 passed by this Court in Crl. Rev. No. 143 of 2003 holding that the petitioners cannot be summoned as an additional accused unless the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Crl. Rev. No. 2329 of 2008 [3] is reached. The summoning order issued without recording any evidence was set aside. However, it was clarified that the parties would be at liberty to move an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in case relevant evidence appear on the record indicating the complexity of any person who can be joined as additional accused. The petitioners have been summoned as additional accused vide impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Additional Sessions Judge has summoned the petitioners on the ground that they were categorically named in the FIR as well as in the deposition of complainant Surjit Kaur while appearing in the Court as PW2. It has been observed that the other witnesses have also been examined and that the evidence which has come on the record is sufficient to make it appear that they have committed the offence for which they could be tried together with other accused. I have considered the entire facts and circumstances of this case and carefully perused the statements of PW1 and PW2 made in the Court. Gurbax Kaur PW1 while appearing in the Court on January 22, 2007 had stated that the husband of Baljinder Kaur had left for Italy after one year of marriage and behaviour of her in-laws was not proper. The in-laws of Baljinder Kaur used to demand more dowry. In her cross-examination she has specifically stated that in her police statement she has not got recorded name of any of the accused. She has not named the petitioners being father- in-law and sister-in-law of deceased to have, on any occasion maltreated the deceased on account of demand of dowry. PW2- Surjit Kaur is the mother Crl. Rev. No. 2329 of 2008 [4] of Baljinder Kaur. She has deposed that her daughter was married to Iqbal Singh in the year 1999 and that she had given sufficient dowry to her daughter at the time of her marriage. She named Surinderpal Singh and Pawandeep Kaur who used to harass Baljinder Kaur as this fact was told to her by deceased daughter. She has stated that her daughter had come to her house and told that all her in-laws used to harass her and that she had given a sum of Rs.1 lac to enable her husband to go to Italy. The allegations against the petitioners are absolutely vague. There is no specific instance of petitioners having participated in maltreating the deceased has been mentioned. On investigation, they were found innocent. It is a settled proposition of law that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised arbitrarily and lightly. The Court summoning the additional accused should be satisfied that there are prima facie chances of conviction of the accused who are sought to be added as additional accused. It is common practice that sometimes complainants are over-zealous to array all the family members of an accused with a mere objective to harass all the family members. Besides this, the stage of the trial is also required to be seen at the time of issuing summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the present case, following witnesses have also been examined:- PW3 Dr. Baldev Raj, PW4 Hardeep Nahar, PW5 SI Sukhraj Singh PW6 HC Balwinder Singh and PW7 HC Suminder Singh. Crl. Rev. No. 2329 of 2008 [5] It is a settled proposition of law in Micheal Machedo and another Vs. C.B.I. and another, 2000 (2) RCR (Crl.) 75, that stage of the trial is also required to be considered at the time of issuing of summoning order against additional accused. Petitioner No.2 is sister-in-law i.e. Nanad. It appears that an attempt is being made to array all the family members. Objective of provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to satisfy the over- zealous complainant but its objective is to achieve ends of justice and to administer justice taking into consideration the circumstances that the investigating agency in its wisdom has found the accused innocent. Before summoning an additional accused it should be apparent, prima facie, that there are fair chances of conviction. Mere probability of an accused to be involved in the case is not sufficient enough to warrant the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated October 11, 2008 has not been passed taking into consideration the various parameters of Micheal Machedo case (supra). In view of the abovesaid circumstances, the order dated October 11, 2008 summoning the petitioners as additional accused deserves to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. Petition is allowed. The order dated October 11, 2008 is hereby quashed. July 1, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE