Criminal Misc. No.M.22494 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.No.M.22494 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision 10.12.2010. Baljit Kaur ...... Petitioner. versus State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.C.PURI. Present : Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI, J. Criminal Misc.No.64032 of 2010 Criminal Misc.No.64032 of 2010 is allowed subject to all just exception. Copy of FIR is taken on record. Main case This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. preferred by the complainant for quashing order dated 14.3.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mukatsar dismissing the revision petition against the order dated 14.3.2008. The complainant/petitioner moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., before the trial Court to summon Bachhattar Singh, Paramjit Kaur, Balwinder Singh, Gurmail Singh, Karamjit Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur as additional accused as shown in column No.2. Babaljit Kaur-complainant appeared as her own witness before the trial Court and thereafter sought the summoning of those persons Criminal Misc. No.M.22494 of 2010 2 as additional accused. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 14.3.2008. Complainant filed revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge, who vide his order dated 27.3.2010 dismissed the revision petition holding that no ground for summoning of additional accused is made out. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 19.9.2001 with accused Gurmit Singh and at the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner spent an amount of Rs.3.00 lacs in the marriage and also gave coloured Television, Refrigerator, Scooter, gold articles, double bed, dinning table, dressing table, sofa set etc in the marriage. After about three months of the marriage, the accused persons started maltreating the petitioner and they used to taunt the petitioner by saying that the parents of the petitioner has not given the sufficient dowry and to bring more cash and gold articles from her parents. On number of occasions, father of the petitioner gave cash to the accused persons so that the petitioner can live peacefully with the accused persons. The accused persons also made an attempt to kill the petitioner by pouring kerosene oil on her but she escaped due to good luck. The parents of the petitioner could not meet the demands of the accused and in the month of November 2003, the accused persons gave beatings to the petitioner and turned her out of the house along with child. . The trial Court as well as First appellate Court dismissed the application as well as revision, therefore, feeling dissatisfied with both the orders as aforesaid, the present petition has been filed. Criminal Misc. No.M.22494 of 2010 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. In this case the trial Court while taking into consideration the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in authority Michael Machando vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75 held that there is statement of complainant only which is repetition of the allegations made in the complaint. There is no other evidence on record except statement of witnesses which were already considered by the investigating agency during investigation. The additional accused can be summoned only when it appears that accused has committed the offence. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in a case Saritha vs. R.Ramachandra 2003(1) Recent Criminal Reports 481 held that reverse trend has been set up and women are increasingly abusing beneficial provisions of Section 498-A IPC by implicating members of the families of the husbands. Similar view was taken in authority Bimla and another vs. Om Parkash 2003(1) Recent Criminal Reports page 752 by this Court. This Court in authority Kamaljit Singh vs. State of Punjab 2004(1) Recent Criminal Reports 321 held that sisters who were long time married and living separately should not be arrayed as accused unless there are specific allegations. There are no specific allegations against the persons sought to be summoned as additional accused. Husband is already facing trial. There are no specific allegations in the FIR and by making some improvements while appearing as a witness in the Court, does not make out a case for grant of summoning the persons sought to be summoned Criminal Misc. No.M.22494 of 2010 4 as additional accused. So, keeping in view whole of the circumstances, no ground for interference in the order passed by both the Courts below is made out. Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE December 10, 2010. sv.