Crl. Revision No.1087 of 2009 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1087 OF 2009 DATE OF DECISION:-01 st JULY, 2010 Tara Singh .......Petitioner. vs State of Haryana & Ors. .........Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Yash Pal Mallik, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for Respondent-State. Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for Respondents no.2 to 7. JASWANT SINGH, J. Present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.PC for quashing the order dated 4.4.2009 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby the application under section 319 Cr.PC for summoning additional accused to face trial has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that initially FIR No.133 dated 25.12.2007 under section 306/34 IPC was registered at police station Hassanpur, Tehsil Hodal, District Palwal earlier District Faridabad Crl. Revision No.1087 of 2009 #2# against Mahender, Tulsi, Anguri, Bijender, Anita & Shyamo on the statement of petitioner Tara Singh with regard to committing suicide by jumping into a well by deceased Hanswati along with her son-Har Narayan. Hanswati, (the daughter of the uncle of complainant- petitioner) was married to Mahender 17 years ago and a son Har Narayan was born out of that wedlock who was 08 years old at the time of his death. Complainant-petitioner had alleged that husband- Mahender, his brother Tulsi Ram, Bijender and their wives Anita and Angoori and mother in law Shyamo started harassing and beating Hanswati as Mahender had illicit relations with Anita (wife of his brother Bijender). Hanswati objected to it and thus she was time and again given beatings by the named persons which ultimately led her to committing suicide along with her 08 years olkd son. The police after completing investigations filed a report under section 173 Cr.PC only against the husband Mahender and found rest of the named accused to be innocent. During trial complainant- petitioner was examined as PW-1 and Mohan, the brother of deceased Hanswati as PW-2 and in their deposition both the Pws named Tulsi, Bijender, Angoori, Anita and Shyamo as equally involved in the crime. Accordingly, application under section 319 Cr.PC was moved for summoning of the aforesaid persons/respondents no.3 to 7 as additional accused to face trial. The application was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 4.4.2009. Hence the present criminal revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents no.3 to 7 had been named in the FIR by the complainant Crl. Revision No.1087 of 2009 #3# and also at the time of his deposition and, therefore, a prima facie case was made out for their summoning. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application as in view of the evidence on record there was no likelihood of the conviction of the persons sought to be summoned and, therefore, the impugned order suffers from no illegality. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the view taken by the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It is the admitted case of the complainant in his cross examination that though he named the respondents no.3 to 7 in the FIR dated 25.12.2007, but the fact that Mahender had illicit relations with Anita and the whole family sided with Mahender and approved their illicit relations and, therefore, Hanswati was subjected to harassment and beatings was only introduced vide his supplementary statement to the police on 9.2.2008. The learned trial court has rightly observed that this statement was not made at the time of lodging the FIR and is an afterthought for obvious reasons in a effort by the complainant party to rope in the entire family. It was found that there was no material to show that the named persons had beaten up Hanswati. It is quite well settled that the discretionary and extraordinary powers conferred on the court under section 319 Cr.PC to summon a person as additional accused to face trial are to be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exists for taking cognizance against such persons. A person should be summoned only Crl. Revision No.1087 of 2009 #4# when court finds that evidence on record is such which would reasonable lead to conviction of persons sought to be summoned (refer to:- Sarabjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 388). In view of the above, no case is made out which warrants interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 01st July, 2010 Vinay