IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1942 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 31, 2011 Rinkal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr.Rishi Pal Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the order passed rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to summon Charan Singh Thakur as an additional accused to face trial for an offence under Section 302 IPC, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the prosecution were duly considered by the trial Court. It was rightly observed that Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be used sparingly and this provision should not be permitted to be used as a tool in the hands of complainant to get summons for each and every person desired to be summoned by him. The main allegations are against accused Parminder, Daya Ram and Shiksha Devi (since deceased). The complainant had made a supplementary statement and the parents of the complainant also made a statement to the police that Charan Singh Thakur was also harassing deceased Rajni. Simultaneously, it was admitted that Charan Singh Thakur is not related to the deceased or in-laws in any manner. The Court has rightly found that Criminal Revision No.1942 of 2011 (O&M) :2: the offence under Section 304-B IPC would not be attracted. For an offence under Section 302 IPC, the evidence of PW-2, who had reiterated his version deposed before the police, was only to an extent that his sister was harassed by the accused facing trial alongwith Charan Singh pressurizing her to bring ` 50,000/-. Said Charan Singh was running a dance school, who is paternal uncle of Parmod and his wife had run away and he was intending that complainant's sister should learn dance so as to join said musical dance group to which his sister was not agreeing. This deposition even if accepted as a gospel truth would not be sufficient to summon a person to face trial under Section 302 IPC, that too as an additional accused. I do not find any infirmity in the view formed by the trial Court. There is no case made out for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. October 31, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE