IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.3060 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 25.11.2009 Jagbir Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 3.11.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide which application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioner- complainant for summoning Suresh wife of Satpal, Satpal son of Ramdhan and Mahender Singh son of Dharam Singh as additional accused has been rejected. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the primary reason which has been given by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhajjar for rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is that the trial in this case is at an advance stage where statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and allowing of the present application at this juncture would delay the proceedings. He further contends that the allegations against the persons sought to be summoned, are specific and, therefore, the observations made by the trial Court cannot be sustained. Crl.Rev.No.3060 of 2009 (O&M) -2- I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records of the case. The learned trial Court has, in detail, dealt with the assertions made in the application, as also the statement which has been given by the petitioner as PW-3 besides the statement of his wife Sumitra as PW-5. A perusal of the same clearly spells out that no specific allegations against Smt.Suresh wife of Satpal, Satpal son of Ramdhan and Mahender Singh son of Dharam Singh, who are now sought to be summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. have been made. The cross-examination of the petitioner further suggests that no dowry was demanded by the accused at the time of marriage. Merely because the three persons who are sought to be summoned as additional accused have been named in the FIR where no specific role has been attributed to them nor in the statement made before the Court by the petitioner-complainant and his wife, invoking provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not called for, no interference in the impugned order would be justified. The impugned order being in accordance with law does not call for any interference by this Court. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. November 25, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE