Cr.Misc. M 33491 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 33491 of 2010 Date of decision:3.12.2010 Darshana Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and ors Respondent Present: Mr. Saju Puri, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is complainant in a case registered against Vijay Kumar and others on the allegation that he had fabricated and forged Will of Jamuna Devi dated 8.10.1970 after the death of Jamuna Devi and after the death of his father Karam Chand. So far as respondents 2 to 4 are concerned, respondent No.2 is wife of Vijay Kumar and respondents 3 and 4 are sisters of Vijay Kumar. The complainant- petitioner is the daughter- in-law of Dharam Chand, wife of Subhash Chander. Respondents 2 to 4 were summoned as additional accused by the trial court u/s 319 Cr.P.C. On a revision filed by respondents 2 to 4, the order of summoning the said respondents as additional accused was set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order dated 5.8.2010, setting aside the order of summoning the private respondents is illegal as respondents 2 to 4, who were arrayed as additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C., are beneficiary of the Will, which was forged by Vijay Kumar son of Karam Chand. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the revisional court has fairly determined the legality and propriety of the summoning order whereby additional accused have been summoned. The revisional Cr.Misc. M 33491 of 2010 2 court has rightly set aside the order on the ground that power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra ordinary power, which requires to be exercised sparingly and under compelling circumstances and that respondents 2 to 4 have not taken any part in the forgery of the Will. They are neither the beneficiaries of the Will nor the Will has been ascribed at their instance. The allegation against them is vague regarding the manner in which they had allegedly conspired in the act of fabrication of Will of Jamuna Devi. I have considered the order passed by the revisional court and I am of the opinion that the said order does not warrant any interference, especially when the validity of the Will of Jamuna Devi is subject matter of civil case. The rights of the parties are to be determined by the civil court. There is no specific attribution to the private respondents regarding their participation. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that the private respondents had conspired. The Conspiracy is required to be established as per the provisions of Section 10 of Evidence Act. There does not appear to be any specific act, which was done by the private respondents in reference to their common design with the main accused Vijay Kumar. Dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to avail any other legal remedy, available to her against the private respondents. December 3 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE