Jai Bhagwan-petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition against the order dated 6.12.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide which the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by complainant-Babu Ram was allowed.

The brief facts of the present case are that on 16.6.2010, Neelam was married with Sunil. Neelam was subjected to harassment by her in-laws for lust of dowry. Panchayat was convened and compromise was arrived at between the parties. However, Sunil and his parents did not adhere to the compromise. Sunil had poured kerosene oil upon Neelam at Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.21 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.247 of 2013(O&M) [2] the instigation of his parents. Neelam was given severe beatings etc. A complaint was lodged by Neelam for the offences under Sections 498-A , 406 and 506 IPC etc. On the very next day, FIR No.874 dated 29.9.2011 for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. In the FIR seven persons were named as per the allegations and it was stated that because of the pressure of the in-laws of Sunil to transfer the house in the name of Neelam, the son of the complainant had consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide. In the FIR, name of Jai Narayan alleged to be uncle (Chacha) was mentioned, but Jai Narayan was maternal grand-father, who had already expired 14 days prior to the registration of the FIR. During investigation, the complainant gave supplementary statement that instead of Jai Narayan, it was Jai Bhagwan uncle of Neelam, who was present. After investigation, petitioner Jai Bhagwan along with three others was found innocent by the Police. After framing of charge, on the basis of statement of PW-1 Babu Ram-complainant, an application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the learned Additional Sessions Judge summoned present petitioner Jai Bhagwan along with Bano as additional accused to face the trial.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that firstly, the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Jai Narayan was named, who was maternal grand-father and had already died 14 days before the registration of the FIR. To fill-up lacuna, the complainant gave supplementary statement by naming Jai Bhagwan instead of Jai Narayan. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is no Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.21 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.247 of 2013(O&M) [3] specific attribution to the present petitioner. He further placed reliance on the law laid down to summon additional accused to face trial along with accused. He placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and another , 2008 (2) RCR (Cr.) 200; Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and another , 2007 (2) RCR (Cr.) 762; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others , 1983 (1) RCR (Cr.) 73; Lal Suraj alias Suraj Singh and another v. State of Jharkhand , 2009 (1) RCR (Cr.) 504; Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah etc. v. State of Gujarat and others, 2011 (3) RCR (Cr.) 852; Sidharth Shanker alias Mannu v. State of Haryana , 2012 (1) RCR (Cr.) 876 and Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another , 2000 (2) RCR (Cr.) 75 and of this Court in Dalpreet Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others , Criminal Misc. No.M-29612 of 2008, decided on 3.2.2012 On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is sufficient material on the record that the accused has been named in the FIR. He has been described as uncle (Chacha) of Neelam, but inadvertently instead of Jai Bhagwan, Jai Narayan had been written, which was corrected by making supplementary statement by the complainant without unnecessary delay. Otherwise also, uncle (Chacha) of Neelam has been written in the FIR, which means that the present petitioner is named in the FIR. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Additional Advocate General argued that Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.21 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.247 of 2013(O&M) [4] there is sufficient material on the record to summon the present revision petitioner in the Court to face trial along with other accused. There is evidence on the record and the Court has summoned the accused after having perused the statements and other material on the record. Therefore, they argued that there being no merit in the revision petition, the same should be dismissed.

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

From the record, I find no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the FIR, the petitioner's name has been written inadvertently as Jai Narayan instead of Jai Bhagwan but, at the same time, he was written as paternal uncle of Neelam, namely, Jai Narayan. In the FIR, it is also written that Jai Narayan i.e. brother of Naresh came to their house, which shows that the petitioner is named in the FIR though inadvertently it is written as Jai Narayan instead of Jai Bhagwan, which is clarified by Babu Ram-complainant in his supplementary statement. Secondly, active role has been attributed to the present petitioner. It is in the FIR that at about 2.30 p.m., Naresh father- in-law of his son, Bano mother-in-law of his son, Parveen and Jai Narayan i.e. brother of Naresh along with Suresh and Shishpal came to their house and started abusing them and asked about their daughter Neelam. They replied that Sunil and Neelam are in their upper room, then all went to Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.21 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.247 of 2013(O&M) [5] upper room and they kept on confronting for about one hour with Sunil and then they went away by taking Neelam along with them and while leaving they said that till then they would not transfer the house in the name of Neelam, they would keep on harassing them like this. After half an hour at about 4.00 p.m., when the complainant went to the room of Sunil, then he saw that froth was coming out from the mouth of his son Sunil. Then with the help of neigbour, he got his son Sunil admitted in Gaurav Hospital, Panipat for treatment, where he died. From the perusal of the FIR, it cannot be held that there is no specific role attributed to the present petitioner. The counsel for the revision petitioner has placed reliance on the law as stated above. In all these citations, it is held that the Court has the discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon a person as an additional accused. Discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised very sparingly and with caution and only when the concerned Court is satisfied that some offence has been committed by such person and this power has to be exercised only on the basis of evidence. In the present case, in view of the contents of the FIR and the active participation on the part of the present petitioner, in no way, it can be held that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge summoning him under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is illegal or against the law. In the revision petition, the Court is to see whether the order passed by the Court is illegal or perverse or without any basis. In view of the statement of PW-1 complainant Babu Ram, which is legal evidence and in view of the material on the record including the FIR and the statements recorded Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.21 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Revision No.247 of 2013(O&M) [6] of other persons, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the order as per law and the same is upheld.

Therefore, finding no merit in the criminal revision petition, the same is dismissed.

July 30, 2013. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.21 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh