Criminal Revision No.1852 of 2011(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No. 1852 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 18, 2011 Harmeet Kaur ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Bhullar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondent – State. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated July 30th, 2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby, application filed by prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to summon Jaswinder Kaur as an accused in case First Information Report No.44 dated June 27th, 2010, registered under Sections 313, 406 and 498-A, was dismissed. 2. The marriage of petitioner-complainant was solemnized with Varinder Singh on December 10th, 2008. Jaswinder Kaur is sister-in-law (husband's sister) of the petitioner. She is married and having two children. She is staying in her matrimonial home at village Sidhuwal, District Patiala. She has a joint family at her matrimonial home, of which the petitioner is not aware. The petitioner even did not name her in the FIR, a fact, which is not controverted by counsel for the petitioner. The investigating agency also did not find any incriminating material against the petitioner. 3. While considering an application under Section 319 CrPC, not only the bare statement of the complainant is to be seen, but other evidence, that is, the material evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, also needs to be examined, to form a prima facie opinion pointing an accusing finger towards the person, sought Criminal Revision No.1852 of 2011(O&M) [ 2 ] to be summoned. 4. In Kans Ram vs. state of Punjab, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 695 (SC), the Hon'bl'e Supreme Court observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. 5. In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, AIR 2010 SC 3363, the FIR was quashed under Section 498-A IPC against the sister-in-law and unmarried brother-in- law of the complainant on the short ground that their implication in the complaint was meant to harass and humiliate husband's relatives. It is normally seen that question of demand of dowry relates to the husband and wife. Sister and brother-in-law, who were married 17 years ago had nothing to do with dowry. They are not going to get anything if at all dowry is given by the wife to her husband or her in laws. 6. In the case in hand, Jaswinder Kaur was not residing in the city, where the complainant was residing. It has become common to drag married sisters of the husband in dowry cases to create pressure. Otherwise, it is the husband, who would be direct beneficiary of dowry. The complainant's words cannot be accepted as final against the distant relatives of the husband as they are least concerned with the matrimonial life of the couple. 7. Such being the factual and legal position, the instant petition seems to be an attempt on the part of the petitioner, whose own married life has entered into rough weather, to drag all the relations of her husband in criminal proceedings. 8. In view of this, this Court upholds the impugned order, as proceedings against Jaswinder Kaur would amount to abuse of process of the Court. 9. Revision dismissed. August 18, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE