Criminal Revision No.2786 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2786 of 2008 Date of Order:16.01.2009 Chhinder Pal Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.H.R.Nohria, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). Prayer in this petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for setting aside the order dated 29.10.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing the application of the Prosecution to summon respondents No. 2 and 3 under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to stand trial with the already arraigned accused. One Gurmail Singh committed suicide. His wife lodged an FIR alleging that he had committed suicide as their daughter-in-law Amarjit Kaur was leading an immoral life at the instance of one Ram Ji Lal, who procured customers for her. It is further alleged that on 16.08.2005 at about 6.00 PM as the complainant objected to Amarjit Kaur's immoral conduct she called her sister and brother-in-law respondents no.2 and 3 who after arrival had beaten and abused Gurmail Singh. On the next day, Gurmail Singh was found dead in the house, having consumed some poisonous substance, After a thorough investigation of the matter Amarjit Kaur and Ram Ji Lal were sent up for trial under Section 306 of the IPC , i.e. for abetment of suicide. Criminal Revision No.2786 of 2008 -2- During trial, the prosecution filed an application for summoning respondents no.2 and 3. The trial court dismissed the application by holding as follows:- "During trial Chhinder Pal Kaur appeared in the witness box as PW2 and reiterated her version suffered before the police on 18.8.2005. In case we take the case of abetment, the same has been defined under Section 107 of IPC which reads as under:- "107 Abetment of a thing:- A person abets in doing of a thing, who- Firstly-Instigates any person to do that thing: or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to doing of that thing; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, in doing of that thing. We are to see whether conduct of Chhinder Pal Singh and Surinder Kaur falls within the definition of abetment. In case we go through the post mortem report and opinion of Doctor, the deceased committed suicide by taking organo phosphorus compound and death is not on account of injuries. The post mortem report shows only one abrasion present on left ankle joint. Therefore, in case both Chhinder Pal Singh and Surinder Kaur come at the spot and gave injuries, that was not cause of death. Actual cause of abetment was immoral life of Amarjit Kaurand Ram Ji singh was Criminal Revision No.2786 of 2008 -3- bringing outsiders in contact with Amarjit kaur. Therefore, evidence on the record does not suggest the abatement on the part of Chhinder Pal singh and Surinder Kaur. Any person can be summoned to the trial along with other accused in the case there is some probable evidence against the persons who are to be summoned to face the trial. However, keeping in view the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that evidence on the record does not suggest any abetment on the part of Chhinderpal Singh and Surinder Kaur. Therefore, this court does not see any merit in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution. The same is, hereby dismissed.” I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the contents of the FIR and also the statement made before the court and find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the court below. As held by the court below even if it is presumed that respondents no 2 and 3 came to the spot and gave injuries to the deceased, the casue for the suicide was the immoral life of Amarjit Kaur and would, therefore, not suggest abetment of suicide on the part of respondents no.2 and 3. The order passed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is neither arbitrary nor perverse and, therefore, does not call for interference. In view of what has been stated herein above, the present petition is dismissed. January 16, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE