Cr.Rev. 245 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Rev. 245 of 2009 Date of decision:- 20.1.2010 Gurmit Kaur petitioner vs State of Punjab and another Respondent Present: None for petitioner. Mr.Arshvinder Singh, DAG, Pb. Mr. RS Ahluwalia, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. Complainant Gurmit Kaur has preferred this revision petition against order dated 8.10.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, discharging Gurjit Kaur. As per the allegations of the complainant in the FIR, she was married to Harpinder Singh, brother of Gurpreet Singh accused, who happens to be the son of Gurjit Kaur. After the death of Harpinder Singh on 19.3.2004, Gurpreet Singh, brother-in-law of complainant, started residing with her as husband on the pretext of marrying her. There are allegations of rape against Gurpreet Singh. The trial court, while framing charges, has observed that Gurjit Kaur had not committed any act of cruelty towards the complainant and that there are no allegations that she participated in the commission of offence of rape of complainant Gurmit Kaur. The legality and propriety of the order of discharge has been challenged inter alia on the ground that there is sufficient material available in the shape of statement of complainant and her father regarding the Cr.Rev. 245 of 2009 2 connivance of Gurjit Kaur with her son Gurpreet Singh as she had facilitated the commission of offence of rape and the consent of the prosecutrix had been obtained in a fraudulent manner for sexual intercourse by Gurpreet Singh with the complainant. With the assistance of counsel for respondent no.2, I have gone through the allegations against respondent no.2. A specific part has been attributed to her in the FIR, registered on the basis of the statement of the complainant. She is alleged to have assured the complainant that her marriage would be solemnized with her younger son. The complainant even states that pursuant to the said assurance, she had allegedly cohabited with Gurpreet Singh, who subsequently left India. The petitioner was allegedly ousted from the house along with a child born to her. In view of the specific allegations against respondent no.2, the impugned order seems to be not proper but in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the scope of interference in the interim order is very meager, therefore, I do not deem it appropriate to set aside the order of discharge dated 8.10.2008 but this revision petition is disposed with an observation that it will be open to the petitioner or the other witnesses to make deposition in the court on the basis of the original allegations and the prosecution agency will be at liberty to file an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. The trial court, in the said eventuality, would carefully consider the material against respondent No.2. In case there is sufficient material, warranting the summoning of respondent No.2, order dated 8.10.2008 will not be considered as a circumstance creating hurdle for exercising of jurisdiction u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, at this stage, informs that the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. has already been filed and is pending for orders for 29.1.2010. It is ordered that the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Cr.Rev. 245 of 2009 3 will be decided irrespective of the order dated 8.10.2008 on the basis of the material, which has been brought on the record, taking into consideration the relevant law in context to the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. A copy of the order will be communicated to the trial court by the Registry through FAX before 29.1.2010. January 20 ,2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE