Crl.Misc.No.M- 23991 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 23991 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.8.2010 Raj Kumar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sandeep Jattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.- for short) for setting aside the order dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak and the prayer further is for summoning of respondents No.2 to 5 as additional accused to face the trial in FIR No.57 dated 12.3.2007 under Sections, 498-A/ 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under:- “Sir, request of applicant is mentioned below that marriage of my daughter Anju was solemnized on 25.11.2003 with accused Rajesh Kumar Kumar son of Zile Singh, Brahaman. In the marriage of my daughter I had given the dowry more than my capacity. After some Crl.Misc.No.M- 23991 of 2010 (O&M) 2 days of marriage, in laws of my daughter were not happy for dowry given in marriage and started to harass my daughter and said that bring Rs.1,50,000/- from your father so that a car can be bought. When my daughter was at paternal home then accused Rajesh Kumar came to take her and he also repeated the same demand then we give him to Rs.50,000/- and promised to pay the rest of the money after arrangement. When we could not arrange rest of money then they started beating my daughter. My daughter informed to our village Chhara that she would be killed by them. Their demands were increasing day by day and we could not fulfil their demands. In the end on 1.3.2007 at 1.30 pm we got the information of death of my daughter. We have doubt that my daughter has been killed due to dowry. It is requested you to investigate the matter and punishment be given to above said accused persons.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner lodged the FIR in question and after investigation, challan was presented against accused Rajesh Kumar, who is the husband of deceased Anju. Prosecution filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the accused, who had been placed in column No.2, to face the trial. The said Crl.Misc.No.M- 23991 of 2010 (O&M) 3 application was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 5.12.2008. Section 319 reads as under:- “Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- 1) where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. 2)Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. 3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. 4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard. b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may Crl.Misc.No.M- 23991 of 2010 (O&M) 4 proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” Thus, as per Section 319 Cr.P.C., whenever during the course of trial, it appears from the evidence that any person not being accused had committed the offence for which he could be tried together with the accused facing the trial, the Court may proceed to summon such person to face the trial as an accused. In the present case, a perusal of the FIR reveals that no specific allegation has been levelled against respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Rather there are specific allegations against accused Rajesh Kumar, who is already facing the trial. During investigation, respondents No.2 to 5 were found innocent. A perusal of the statement of PW-1 Raj Kumar (Annexure P-2) also reveals that no specific allegation has been levelled against respondents No.2 to 5. It appears that the petitioner was satisfied with the impugned order and that is why he has waited for such a long period before filing the present petition. Keeping in view the above facts no ground for interference in the impugned order by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 19, 2010 anita