Crl. Rev. No. 446 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 446 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 28,2011 Varun Kumar .................................................................. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ............................................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Ritu Bahri,J. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the order dated 23.12.2010 whereby under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Varun Kumar has been summoned to face the trial under Section 304-B IPC. Mr. H.S.Gill, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has challenged this order on the ground that there is a tendency now a days to rope in all relations in matrimonial disputes arising out of criminal proceedings. Brother of the petitioner Karan Kumar @ Goldi was married to Sonika in the year 2004. Sonika died on 1.6.2010 due to hanging at the house of her husband. The instant FIR No. 49 dated 1.6.2010 under Section Crl. Rev. No. 446 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] 304-B/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar Balachaur. Challan was presented against Karan Kumar, husband, and a supplementary challan was filed against Ravinder Kumar @ Babbu. After this, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. The charges were framed against Karan Kumar and Ravinder Kumar on 18.11.2010. During trial, at the time of cross-examination of PW2 Vinay Kumar, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed and the petitioner has been summoned to face trial. Mr. Gill has vehemently argued that no fresh offence has been brought in the trial to summon the petitioner or to come to the conclusion that it will lead to his conviction. Merely on the statement of PW2 Vinay Kumar in his cross-examination the petitioner cannot be summoned to face the criminal proceedings. No new facts have come on the record. Hence, the summoning orders are liable to be quashed. Relies on Sarabjit Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 388, Usha Mehta v. .State of Punjab and another 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 220, Paramvir @ Happy v. State of Haryana 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 408 and Hukam Chand and another v. State of Haryana and another 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 141. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The ratio of the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner would be applicable if there is any dispute on facts narrated in the FIR or in the statement of the complainant. In the FIR as well as in the statement of Vinay Kumar it has been mentioned that on 31.5.2010 deceased Sonika had given a telephonic call to her family members and informed that her in-laws family was harassing her and they may even kill her. On the very next day, they received the information that Sonika was no Crl. Rev. No. 446 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] more. When they reached her husband's home, the family members were away from the house. In view of the above factual position, the order summoning the petitioner to face trial suffers from no illegality. The criminal miscellaneous is dismissed. 28.2.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE