IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2600 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 20, 2011 Mandeep Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) This is a revision assailing order dated 13.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, thereby rejecting the application moved by the prosecution to summon respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (sister-in- law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased) as additional accused to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Husband and father-in-law of the deceased are already facing trial. Learned Trial Court has rejected the application having observed that Amarjit Kaur, sister-in- CRR No. 2600 of 2011 law, was married in the year 1992 much prior to the marriage of the deceased and she has been residing at her matrimonial home far-far away from the matrimonial home of the deceased; Randhir Kaur, mother-in-law, also found to be residing separately from the residence of the deceased and Varinder Singh for the last three years. Learned Trial Court has also observed that evidence made available on the record may not lead to the conviction of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, therefore, there is no justification to summon them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as additional accused. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order impugned, therefore, present revision is dismissed summarily at the admission stage. October 20, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2