Crl. Revision No. 633 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 633 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 14, 2010 Manjit Singh ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ........Respondents ****** CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. P.K. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Baljit Puri, Advocate, for respondent No.2. SABINA, J. Petitioner had filed this petition under Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.) challenging the order dated 13.2.2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Sangrur, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face the trial on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the married brother-in-law of the deceased. The petitioner is residing in his government accommodation in Police Line, Sangrur for the last 13-14 years. Petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to his relationship with the other co-accused. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition. They have submitted Crl. Revision No. 633 of 2010 (O&M) 2 that the petitioner had also actively participated at the time of commission of offence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. In the present case, Manpreet Kaur was married to Karamjit Singh son of Darshan Singh in November, 2003. She has died an unnatural death due to burning on 13.8.2006. After investigation challan was presented against accused Karamjit Singh. After examination of P.W.1 Mann Singh during trial prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The said application was allowed vide the impugned order and Darshan Singh, Daldip Kaur and Manjit Singh were also ordered to be summoned to face the trial under Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') read with Section 34 IPC. Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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 Crl. Revision No. 633 of 2010 (O&M) 3 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 the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may 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 the above provision at any stage of trial the Court may summon any person to face the trial, who is also liable to face the trial alongwith the accused. P.W.1 Mann Singh has deposed that after the marriage of his niece Manpreet Kaur, Karamjit Singh her husband, Darshan Singh (father- in-law), Dalip Kaur (mother-in-law), Manjit Singh (Jeth) started harassing Manpreet Kaur and demanded more dowry and used to give beatings to her. At the time of Rakhi festival on 9.8.2006, Karamjit Singh accused had given beatings to Manpreet Kaur and had demanded money. Manpreet Kaur withdrew Rs.4000/- from her account and gave the same to Karamjit Singh. However, more demand of money was made from her. On 13.8.2006 at about 9.30 p.m. he received information that Manpreet Kaur had suffered burn injuries. As per this witness his niece had been set ablaze by Karamjit Singh, Darshan Singh, Daldip Kaur and Manjit Singh. He was also told that Manpreet Kaur had caught hold of Karamjit Singh from his hand and due to this reason he had also suffered burn injuries. In his cross-examination this witness deposed that Manjit Singh was elder brother of Karamjit Singh and Crl. Revision No. 633 of 2010 (O&M) 4 was a married man. Manjit Singh had two children. Manjit Singh had been allotted a government accommodation in Police Line, Sangrur and he was residing there for the last about 13-14 years. Children of Manpreet Kaur might have been studying at Sangrur. Admittedly, the deceased was residing with her husband at Village Ahan Kheri. In these circumstances, it appears that the petitioner has been involved in this case merely because of his relationship with the husband of the deceased. Petitioner was residing separately with his family for last 13-14 years. Moreover, if petitioner needed something then he would have raised the demand from his in-laws. In Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 696 (SC), their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. The efforts for involving the other relations ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused. In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order whereby the petitioner was summoned to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is quashed qua the petitioner. (SABINA) September 14, 2010 JUDGE Anand