IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 2675 of 2010 ( O&M) Date of decision: 12.10.2010 State of Haryana ......Petitioner Vs. Tarun and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the petitioner. **** ORDER The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 13.5.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide which the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of additional accused has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per statement of complainant Giani Ram (PW-9) and his wife Raj Bala (PW-10) specific demand was there as accused Tarun (husband) Mahendero (mother-in-law), Durga Dass ( father-in-law) and Renu (sister-in-law) used to tease and beat Asha for bringing less dowry and all of them used to harass her with regard to that demand. They corroborated the version given in the FIR. Specific role with regard to demand of dowry and other allegations were there. Asha was taken forcibly to a lady doctor and Cooper-T was implanted so that she may not give birth to a child. Crl. Revision No. 2675 of 2010 [2] I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner-State and have also gone through the impugned order and other documents available on the record. As per case of the prosecution, marriage of Asha was solemnized with accused Tarun Dahiya in the year 2007 and a daughter was born out of the said wedlock. Sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but her husband Tarun, father-in-law Durga Dass, mother-in-law Mahendero and sister-in-law Renu used to maltreat Asha and treated her with cruelty for or in connection with demand of dowry. On 16th January, 2008, her parents were informed with regard to her death that she had committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of complaint made by father of the deceased, FIR under Section 498-A/304-B IPC was registered and husband Tarun and father-in-law Durga Dass were arrested and mother-in- law Mahendero and sister-in-law Renu were not found involved in the alleged occurrence and they were found innocent by the police. Only husband and father-in-law were charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A/304-B IPC. During trial, an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. was filed to amend the charge which was dismissed on 17th September, 2009. The complainant filed a revision petition which was also dismissed by the High Court on 20th April, 2010. Statements of complainant Giani Ram (PW-9), his wife Raj Bala (PW-10) Bhim Singh (PW-11) and ASI Om Parkash (PW-12), were recorded and they had reiterated the allegations of demand of dowry by mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Thereafter application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was Crl. Revision No. 2675 of 2010 [3] moved by the complainant for summoning of mother-in-law and married sister-in-law as additional accused to face trial. The Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide order dated 13th May, 2010 dismissed the application on the ground that mother-in-law was residing with her daughter where she was pursuing studies and moreover, no fresh evidence was there as statement of complainant Giani Ram (PW-9) and his wife Rajbala (PW-10) had reiterated what had been stated before the police. It has also come in the evidence that sister-in-law is married and is residing in the University Campus and mother-in-law was residing in the village. For summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C as an additional accused, there has to be some evidence before the Court which would indicate the complicity of the person who is sought to be summoned or some material should have come on record which may prompt the Court to believe that the person so accused is likely to be involved and his conviction is likely to result in the eventuality of his facing the trial and the onslaught of the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution. The mere statement ipso facto cannot form the basis of summoning the person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michael Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 2000 (2) RCR (Crl.) 75 (SC) has observed as under: “ The basic requirement for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the Court from Crl. Revision No. 2675 of 2010 [4] the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well as tried along with the already arraigned accused. But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only to discretion as could be discerned from the words “the Court may proceed against such person”. The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for Crl. Revision No. 2675 of 2010 [5] collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against each other persons.” In view of the law positon, there is no fresh evidence on record to summon the proposed accused as it is merely reiteration of the earlier statement which has already been investigated by the police and the persons sought to be summoned were found innocent. The mother-in-law was residing separately and sister-in- law was pursuing her studies and was also residing at University Campus. There was no occasion for interference in their matrimonial life. Moreover, there is always a tendency to implicate all family members of the husband. No ground for interference is made out. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE October 12, 2010. raghav