In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Revision No.602 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:25.2.2010 Gaurav Garg .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 3.2.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby the application filed by the petitioner for summoning Deepak alias Dinesh, Kumari Mamta and Kumari Shalu as additional accused to face trial has been declined. The prosecution case is that on an information received by the Police on 7.8.2009 that a lady had committed suicide by hanging herself in a house at Faridabad, SI Rameshwar Dayal reached the place of occurrence where the petitioner made his complaint. It is alleged by the complainant that his sister Pooja (deceased) was married to Yogesh Mittal on 21.4.2007. They had spent substantial money in the marriage which was beyond their capacity. They gave a Santro car, 40 Tolas of gold; besides, Rs.11 Lacs in cash. However, the sister of the complainant (petitioner) was ill-treated in her matrimonial home by her in-laws. Pooja had informed the complainant on many occasions to either give money, otherwise she would be finished Cr. Revision No.602 of 2010 [2] by her mother-in-law Kiran, father-in-law Hira Lal, husband Yogesh, sisters-in-law (Nanads) Mamta and Shalu as also mother-in-law's sister (Massi Saas), namely, Anita. On 7.8.2009 at 9.15 a.m. Yogesh-husband of Pooja made a telephone call at the house of the complainant which was attended by the complainant's mother but he did not say anything. The complainant rang-up Yogesh who told him that with regard to the gold chain given on the occasion of `Raksha Bandhan' to Pooja as gift, quarrel had taken place. The complainant told Yogesh that he was reaching there. In the meantime, the complainant's wife told him that she had received a call from the in-laws of Mamta, that is, sister-in-law (Nanad) of Pooja that Pooja had committed suicide by hanging herself. The complainant along with other family members reached there and found his sister hanging with the ceiling fan. It was alleged that the sister of the complainant had been killed by Yogesh, Hira Lal, Deepak, Kiran and sisters-in-law (Nanads) Mamta and Shalu and mother-in-law's sister Anita and they had hanged her on the fan. On the aforesaid allegations the FIR was registered. During investigation brother-in-law (Devar) Deepak and sisters-in-law (Nanads) Mamta and Shalu were found innocent. The other accused, namely, Yogesh, husband of Pooja, Hira Lal and Smt. Kiran, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of Pooja and Smt. Anita, the mother-in-law's sister of Pooja were charge-sheeted (challaned) by the Court on 5.11.009 for the offences under Sections 304-B and 34 IPC. To prove its charge, the prosecution has examined Gaurav Garg as PW-1. After his examination, an application was submitted for summoning Dinesh alias Deepak, Kumari Mamta and Kumari Shalu as they have been specifically named. Cr. Revision No.602 of 2010 [3] The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record dismissed the application. Aggrieved against the same the present petition has been filed. Leaned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the statement of Gaurav Garg (PW-1) clearly establishes the involvement of Deepak alias Dinesh (Devar), Kumari Mamta and Kumari Shalu in the incident and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gravely erred in not summoning them. It is submitted by the complainant in his statement before the Court that except for three-four other persons, who were present in the house when the deceased Pooja was found hanging, there was none in the home at that time. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel it has come on record that the persons sought to be summoned were also present in the house. It is also submitted that the prosecution evidence is yet to commence and other witnesses, are to be examined and on their examination the involvement of the persons sought to be summoned would stand conclusively established. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned order considered the fact that Mamta one of the sister-in-law (Nanad) of Pooja was married on 5.5.2009 and was at the place of her in-laws which is at a distance of 50 kms. from the place of in-laws of deceased Pooja. The incident in the present case occurred on 7.8.2009 i.e. after three months of the marriage of Mamta. The other sister-in-law (Nanad) Shalu, it was observed that she was a student of 12th class and was aged 19 years. At the time of marriage of Yogesh with Pooja, she (Shalu) was student of at the most 10th class and was aged about 17 years. Insofar as Deepak alias Cr. Revision No.602 of 2010 [4] Dinesh-brother-in-law (Devar) of Pooja is concerned, it was observed that there was no allegation that said Deepak alias Dinesh ever raised demand for dowry or had harassed Pooja. The said fact had been admitted by Gaurav Garg (PW-1) during his cross-examination in which it is stated that he did not mention in his complaint (Ex.PA) that Deepak used to raise demand or that his sister i.e. deceased ever told him that Deepak had maltreated her or had made any demand. In the circumstances, the conclusions and findings reached at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in declining to summon Deepak alias Dinesh, Kumari Mamta and Kumari Shalu are sound and reasonable. In crimes arising out of matrimonial disputes it has quite often been observed that there is a tendency to involve the relatives of the husband when the relations between the husband and the wife got strained. In the present case, there was initially no allegation in the FIR or any complaint of harassment by Deepak alias Dinesh. Besides, the marriage of Kumari Mamta had been solemnized on 5.5.2009 i.e. three months prior to the incident that occurred. Insofar as Kumari Shalu is concerned she was an unmarried girl of 19 years at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, simply because Gaurav Garg in his statement before the trial Court has submitted that the persons sought to be summoned were also involved would not by itself be a sufficient ground to summon them. In a matter of summoning an additional accused, mere suspicion on the persons who are sought to be summoned or their mere involvement is not enough. The Court is to have a reasonable satisfaction that the other person who is not arraigned as an accused in the charge-sheet that has been filed by the Police has indeed committed the offence and that Cr. Revision No.602 of 2010 [5] for the said offence he could well be tried along with the accused who had already been arraigned as such. In the facts and circumstances, the learned trial Court having found no sufficient material to summon Deepak alias Dinesh, Kumari Mamta and Kumari Shalu would not warrant any interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. February 25, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*