Criminal Revision No. 1983 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1983 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.01.2010 Mangal Singh son of Ram Niwas, resident of Bhodia Khera, District Fatehabad. ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Haryana. 2. Bhajan Lal Suthar son of Giani Ram; 3. Smt. Kamla wife of Bhajan Lal; 4. Ramesh Kumar son of Bhajan Lal; ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No. 1 – State. Mr. Tara Chand, Advocate, for the complainant. SHAM SUNDER, J. This revision-petition, is directed against the order, dated 14.07.09, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide which, it dismissed the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning respondents No. 2 and 3, as additional accused, to face trial. Criminal Revision No. 1983 of 2009 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that the marriage of Sumeshta (since deceased) with Ramesh, was solemnized, on 12.02.09, and she died within 7 years of her marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances, i.e. on account of organo-phosphorous poisoning, and soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. Ultimately, FIR No. 32, dated 13.02.09, under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, Police Station Bhattu Kalan, was registered. Challan was presented against Ramesh Kumar husband of the deceased, whereas respondents No. 2 and 3, were found to be innocent. 3. Feeling aggrieved, Mangal Singh, complainant-petitioner, filed an application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning respondents No. 2 and 3, as additional accused, to face trial. 4. The trial Court, after hearing the State Counsel, as also the Counsel for the complainant, and, on going through the documents, on record, dismissed the application. 5. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the evidence on record, was sufficient to establish, that Bhajan Lal, father-in-law, and Kamla, mother-in-law, treated Sumeshta, with cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. He further submitted that the Criminal Revision No. 1983 of 2009 3 trial Court, did not appreciate the evidence of the witnesses, namely Mangal Singh and Mohar Singh, as a result whereof, it fell into an illegality, in dismissing the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., for summoning respondents No. 2 and 3, as additional accused. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, the Court below, after proper appreciation of the evidence produced, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the evidence produced, could not reasonably lead to the conviction of Bhajan Lal, father-in-law and Kamla, mother-in-law, respectively of the deceased. He further submitted that the order impugned, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. In Sarabjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2009(3), RCR (Criminal), 388, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the person, should be summoned, as an additional accused, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., only when the Court finds that evidence, on record is such, which would reasonably lead to his conviction. In Kailash Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2008(2), RCR (Criminal), 200, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the discretion, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has to be exercised very sparingly, with Criminal Revision No. 1983 of 2009 4 caution and only when the concerned Court is satisfied, that some offence, has been committed by such person. No doubt, respondents No. 2 and 3, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the deceased, after thorough investigation, were found, to be innocent, yet, that circumstance alone, could not be said to be sufficient, for declining the application, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. During the course of his cross-examination, Mangal Singh, stated that his sister, Sumeshta, was a Matriculate, whereas, the accused, is a Middle pass. He claimed that, an amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- to Rs. 3,00,000/-, was spent, on the marriage of his sister. He also admitted, that the mother of Ramesh, accused, is a handicapped lady. Mohar Singh, another brother of the deceased, while appearing, as PW6, described him, to be unemployed, and a handicapped person. Both the witnesses only stated that respondents No. 2 and 3, maltreated the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. There is nothing, in their statements as to which particular article of dowry was demanded by them from the deceased or her parents. They only stated that respondent No. 4, husband of the deceased, demanded motor-cycle in dowry. In this back-ground, the financial condition of the family of the deceased, could be very well assessed. The trial Court, after going through the evidence of Mangal Singh and Mohar Singh, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the same, could not reasonably lead to the conviction of the persons, sought to be summoned. From the evidence, on record, the complicity of both the father-in-law and mother-in-law, was not established. In these circumstances, it could Criminal Revision No. 1983 of 2009 5 not be said, that the discretion, exercised by the Court below, was, in any way, arbitrary or capricious. On the other hand, the trial Court, exercised the discretion, vested in it, in a judicious manner. The order of the trial Court, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 21.01.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE