Crl. R No. 2998 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. R No. 2998 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : March 22, 2011 Chanan Singh and others, ...... Petitioners v. State of Punjab, ...... Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gazi Mohd. DAG Punjab *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral This petition has been filed against the order dated 20.7.2010 whereby the petitioners have been summoned under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C to face trial in case FIR No.6, dated 13.01.2007, registered under Sections 306/218 of the IPC, at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur. On 30.11.2010, the following order was passed :- “ Learned counsel at the outset contends that he does not press the petition in respect of petitioners No.1 and 2 who have already appeared before the trial Court. Crl. R No. 2998 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: According to him, they are ready to face trial. In respect of petitioner No.3, learned counsel submits that she was unmarried sister at the time of occurrence and only evidence available against her is statement of mother of the deceased which according to learned counsel is not sufficient for the purpose of summoning her under Section 319 Cr.P.C to face trial. Notice of motion as well as notice of the application for condonation of delay for 10.01.2011. Notice re: stay.” Counsel for petitioner No.3 has argued that admittedly, it was a case of love marriage since the deceased was earlier married to some body and then eloped with the brother of the petitioner. He has further argued that there is an omnibus allegation in the FIR to the effect that the entire family used to harass the deceased for dowry. He has further stated that petitioner No.3 was unmarried at that time and that while summoning the petitioner, the parameters laid down in Michael Machado & Another vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75 have not been kept in mind. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has sought to defend the order by arguing that the petitioner has been summoned after the statement of the complainant was recorded in Court. In my opinion, the mere statement of the complainant in Court would not be enough to satisfy the strict parameters laid down in Michael Machado & Another's case (supra). In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to allow this petition and to quash the impugned order qua petitioner No.3. Ordered accordingly. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 22, 2010. JUDGE `kk' Crl. R No. 2998 of 2010 (O&M) ::3::