IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.3188 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 17, 2010 Parvesh Kumari .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Suryakant Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed in challenge to Order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal. It transpires that at the instance of petitioner, Parvesh Kumari, FIR No.251 dated 18.6.2005 was lodged for commission of offence under Sections 498-A, 406, 325, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station, Sadar Karnal. On investigation, Crl. Revision No.3188 of 2009 [2] Shashi, Rekha and Seema, all sisters in law of the complainant and Manvir, husband of Shashi were found innocent. No incriminating material was found against them and therefore, they have not been involved as accused in the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. After examination of petitioner-complainant, Parvesh Kumari (PW-1), an application for summoning the said four persons was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. that has been dismissed vide the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact that Shashi and Manvir were married in 1991. Rekha was married in the year 1995. Seema is the unmarried sister in law and has been in service in Patiala with Dainik Jagran Newspaper. It is also not in dispute that application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. was filed to summon the said four persons which was dismissed. Revision was carried which also was dismissed. It is also not in dispute that the said persons had separate residence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Shashi and Manvir were living just about half kilometre away and therefore, had all occasion to interfere in the matrimonial life of the complainant and her husband. Crl. Revision No.3188 of 2009 [3] I have considered the contentions. The complainant got married in the year 2003. Investigating agency could not find any incriminating material against Shashi, Manvir, Rekha and Seema. The statement given by PW-1 was not found sufficient by the Trial Court to summon the said four persons as additional accused. It has been held that it does not inspire confidence. It seems to be an attempt to rope in entire family, as mother in law and father in law are already facing trial. The husband is an accused though is absconding. In revisional jurisdiction, this Court has no reason to differ with the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 17, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?