Criminal Revision No. 2313 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2313 of 2009 Date of decision: 7-1-2010 Sukhdev Singh and Another .........Petitioners Vs State of Punjab and Another .........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Shri P.S.Hundal, Senior Advocate, with Shri Dinesh Trehan, Advocate, for the appellants Shri K.D.Sachdeva, Additional A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1 Shri Vipul Jindal, Advocate, for respondent No.2 HARBANS LAL, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 2.6.2009 passed by the court of learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib whereby he summoned the petitioners Sukhdev Singh as well as Charanjit Kaur to face trial alongwith their co-accused under Section 304-B/306 IPC. The facts giving rise to this petition are during investigation, it came to light that in-laws of the deceased had not demanded any dowry. The deceased had firstly consumed organo phosphorus to commit suicide, whereafter she put herself a-fire, while she was all alone in the house. After thorough investigation, the offence under Section 304-B IPC was deleted and instead Section 306 IPC was mentioned. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted with a good Criminal Revision No. 2313 of 2009 2 deal of force that no evidence was brought on the record by the prosecution that the deceased was met with cruelty which was sufficient to drive her to commit suicide. The petitioner Sukhdev Singh aged about 62 years is working in a factory at Mandi Gobindgarh. The deceased and her husband, son of the petitioners, were living in separate portion of the house. The trial Court has not recorded satisfaction to the effect that evidence brought on the file by the prosecution is sufficient to record conviction against the petitioner. That being so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. To overcome these submissions, the learned State counsel agitated at the Bar that the petitioners have been facing trial alongwith their co-accused since long and the trial is at its fag end as only the Investigator remains to be examined and thus at this stage, no case is made out for setting aside the impugned order. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not denied the above fact pointed out by the learned State counsel. It clearly indicates that no useful purpose would be served by going into the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners at this juncture for the simple and obvious reason that the same can be raised before the learned trial Court at the time of final arguments. Sequelly this petition is dismissed. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE January 7, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No