CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1989 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 17, 2011 Hanumat Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. A. Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Being aggrieved against the order declining the prayer of the petitioner to summon additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has approached this Court through the present revision petition. The prayer made is to summon father-in-law of the deceased who was found innocent during investigation. Hanumant Singh (PW6) has CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1989 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: now appeared and has made a statement on oath and on the basis thereof this application has been filed to summon the father-in-law of the deceased as additional accused. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court has wrongly rejected the prayer of the prosecution and that there is sufficient evidence and material on record of the case for the Court to summon father-in-law of the deceased as additional accused in this case. I have perused the evidence given by PW6. No doubt, the witness has now made general allegations against father-in-law as well but has not assigned any specific role or has not made any specific allegation against him while deposing before the Court. The father-in-law has been joined with others as family members, who had made a demand etc. The Trial Court has considered the request in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of number of judgments. The conditions, which are essential to summon a person as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., have been noticed by the Trial Court on the basis of these judgments. The Court has rightly noticed the principles of law, which are settled to summon an additional accused. It is observed that if there is a reasonable prospectus of his/her conviction on the basis of evidence, then person can be joined as an additional CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1989 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: accused. This principle of law and also the one that such power is an extra ordinary power and is to be exercised sparingly has been rightly noticed. These are the requirements, which have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through various judgements. The Trial Court, thus, has rightly considered the aspect and has analyzed the evidence led before the Court to come to a conclusion that such evidence was not sufficient to raise a prospect of conviction of an additional accused sought to be summoned. The view is well considered, which would not call for any interference. Dismissed. November 17, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE