IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-22245 of 2008 Date of decision: 8th January, 2009 Bimla Sharma @ Bimla Devi … Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. P.S. Hundal, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chahal, APP for U.T. Chandigarh. Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for respondent No.2. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present case, FIR No. 163 dated 17.05.2004 was registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh under Section 498-A IPC. FIR was lodged at the instance of Dilpreet Kaur respondent No.2. She had named two accused, her husband Gian Chand and sister of Gian Chand namely Bimla Devi, present petitioner. Since during investigation, only Gian Chand was found guilty, challan was submitted against him only. Complainant, aggrieved against this action of the police, had instituted a complaint under Section 200 IPC. Petitioner was summoned to stand trial vide order (Annexure P-5) for an offence under Section 325, 324, 323, 405 and 498-A IPC. Case proceeded, statement of Dilpreet Kaur was recorded and petitioner was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Criminal Misc. No. M-22245 of 2008 Grievance of the counsel for the petitioner is two-fold. He states that under Section 319 Cr.P.C., it has not been stated that for what offence, petitioner has been summoned. Counsel states that it assumes importance, as in a complaint case, petitioner has been summoned under Sections 325, 324, 323, 405, 498-A IPC, whereas husband has been charged only for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Second submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that from the testimony of PW-1, Dilpreet Kaur, incriminating evidence against the petitioner is not available. Taking totality of circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that since in the complaint case, petitioner has been summoned under Sections 325, 324, 323, 405, 498-A IPC and where the petitioner is already appearing, to save judicial embarrassment in parallel proceedings, it will be in the interest of parties that case arising out of case FIR No. 163 dated 17.05.2004 registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh under Section 498-A IPC and case arising out of criminal complaint, in which summoning order (Annexure P-5) has been passed, are clubbed. Thereafter, the trial Court, after hearing the parties, shall determine as to whether the petitioners are to be charged or not, and if they are to be charged, for what offence. Since petitioner in the present case is sister of the husband, her personal appearance, before the trial Court, is exempted, subject to her filing an undertaking that she shall cause her appearance as and when required by the trial Court. She shall also file an undertaking that the evidence, if any, recorded in her absence but in the presence of her counsel, shall be binding upon her. The trial Court may incorporate any other conditions in the undertaking to be submitted by the accused. With these observations, present petition is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE January 8, 2009 rps 2