IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.996 of 2011. Date of Decision : 15.7.2011. Tinku ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. A.D.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This complainant's revision is directed against the order dated February 16th, 2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby application filed by the prosecution for summoning Meghawati, Sonu, Pawan and Poonam as additional accused under Sections 304-B, 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code, was dismissed. 2. Facts. Babli brother of Tinku-complainant was married with Pawan on April 16th, 2009. On August 16th, 2010 complainant received a telephonic call from the Police Post, Sonepat that his sister has committed suicide by hanging. On August 17th, 2010 complainant made complaint (Exhibit PA) to the Police stating that in-laws of his sister used to make demands of money and on that account they used to harass her. In order to make them happy, he gave an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to them but despite that Maghwati (mother-in-law), Pawan (Husband), Sonu (brother-in-law), Pawan (sister-in-law) of Babli used to harass and beat her for bringing less dowry. She used to tell him the entire story. On the fateful day, she ended her life by committing suicide. The complainant lodged complaint (Exhibit PA) against all the persons as afore-stated. 3. After investigating the case, the Police submitted report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Pawan only. Meghwati, Sonu, Pawan and Poonam were found innocent. 4. During trial, complainant appeared as PW-1 and reiterated the allegations as narrated above. The prosecution moved an application for summoning Meghawati, Sonu, Pawan and Poonam as additional accused but the same was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner has urged that the Court below has erred in rejecting the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code. 6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the complainant at the time of making the complaint (Exhibit PA) raised accusing finger against all the accused but the Police after investigating the case, found Pawan (husband) only to be the culprit and accordingly, the report was filed against him. During trial, nothing new came into light, rather the complainant has deposed in verbatim what he stated in his complaint. 7. This Court in Hukam Chand & another vs. State of Haryana & another 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 141 held that where the accused was found innocent and challan was put up, his name was kept in column No.2 and then statement of the complainant was recorded in which he re-iterated the allegations made in the complaint, this Cannot be treated as additional evidence and the Court cannot summon a person as accused on the basis of that statement alone which was considered by the Police during investigation and for summoning under Section 319 of the Code, there has to be some evidence which would indicate the complicity of the persons, who are sought to be summoned and mere statement of the complainant cannot form the basis of summoning the persons under Section 319 of the Code. Even otherwise, the family of Pawan had disowned him by making publication in “Dainik Jagran” newspaper dated August 22nd, 2009. So far as Pawan (sister-in-law) is concerned, she was married and she had nothing to do with the demand of dowry. A person is not to be summoned merely because his name has been mentioned belatedly or as a result of after thought or out of the over zealousness on part of the complainant to get all the members of a family or his foes arraigned as accused for being tried as such along with others who are already arraigned before the court. A person is not to be summoned as an additional accused to stand trial with others merely for the asking. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 15.7.2011. SN