IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.621 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 12, 2010 Krishna Poddar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed in challenge to Order dated 10.3.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tack Court), Bhiwani whereby petitioner, Krishna Poddar, has been ordered to be summoned as additional accused for commission of offence under Sections 306, 34 IPC while exercising jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It has been brought out that Crl. Revision No.621 of 2008 [2] investigating agency investigated the role of the petitioner, however, no incriminating material as against the petitioner was found and therefore, the petitioner was shown in Column No.2. During the course of trial, an application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner as additional accused after recording the statement of PW-2, Karan Kandoi. In the petition, it has been brought out that the petitioner, for the love of humanity and welfare of society, decided not to marry. The petitioner takes active part in social and religious activities and is serving as a Professor in Vaish Education College, Bhiwani. The petitioner is a lady aged about 50 years. It has specifically been pleaded that the petitioner has been residing separately in her house, having separate ration card. The petitioner is self dependent and earns about Rs.30,000/- per month. Saroj wife of Raman, brother of the petitioner, committed suicide on 2.6.2006. Saroj used to live with her husband in Bangalore before her death. Marriage was solemnised on 26.11.1996. FIR No.269 dated 2.6.2006 under Sections 302, 306, 34 IPC was lodged with Police Station, City, Bhiwani. Challan was filed only for commission of Crl. Revision No.621 of 2008 [3] offence under Sections 306, 34 IPC. As per the recitals in the FIR, specific allegations have been made against Raman, brother in law of the complainant who is the real brother of the deceased; Suresh Kumar, elder brother; Santosh, wife of Suresh Kumar; Ram Niwas and wife of Ram Niwas. It has been alleged that Raman was not doing any work and had demanded Rs.5 lac from the complainant and his father. In the FIR itself, it has been stated that Raman and Saroj last resided in Bangalore. Even the complainant stayed in Bangalore. In regard to the petitioner, it has been stated in the FIR that about 6 years ago, Krishna Poddar (petitioner) had given beatings to Saroj with the help of her brother Naresh (as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the name has been wrongly given, infact the name is Suresh). Krishna used to say to Raman that his wife does not bring money. About 6 years earlier, Krishna had instigated Raman by calling him impotent. It is three days thereafter they had come to home at Bhiwani whereafter this occurrence took place. Annexure P-4 is the supplementary Crl. Revision No.621 of 2008 [4] statement of the complainant wherein role of the petitioner has been re-stated by way of substantial improvements. Be that as it may, after considering all the material, the investigating agency found the petitioner to be innocent. Learned counsel for the respondent- complainant admits that the petitioner is resident of Bhiwani and had not lived with Saroj (deceased) at any point in time. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been implicated only because she happens to be the sister of husband of the deceased. The petitioner has been living in Bhiwani throughout, whereas Saroj and her husband (Raman) were living either in Surat or Bangalore as per the prosecution case. Allegations have been made against the petitioner only so as to implicate the entire family. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Trial Court in its right perspective. The allegations against the petitioner have been made with malafide intention only so as to harass the petitioner. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that continuance of Crl. Revision No.621 of 2008 [5] proceedings against the petitioner would be abuse of process of law and process of Court. The petition is allowed. Order dated 10.3.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tack Court), Bhiwani is hereby set aside. (AJAI LAMBA) March 12, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?