VIKRAM AND ORS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against summoning order dated 18.8.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (I), Bhiwani vide which petitioners Vikram, Poonam and Ram Niwas have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as additional accused in case FIR No. 15 dated 16.2.2009 under Sections 304B/406/498A/506 IPC registered at Police Station, Baund Kalan to face trial along with the main accused.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued in the case on 8.9.2009 and personal appearance of the petitioners was exempted before the trial Court.

(3.) Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have wrongly been summoned in the case whereas they were nothing to do with the matrimonial life of the deceased. The FIR in the case was registered after a long delay which is ante-timed and based on totally false allegations. The allegations against the petitioners are vague and omnibus whereas no specific overt-act has been alleged with regard to demand of dowry or harassment against the present petitioners. Even in the statement of Shashi Parbha, mother of deceased, before the Executive Magistrate on 22.2.2009, she had not made any specific allegations against any of the petitioners. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Senior Counsel further submits that the case was investigated by Senior Police Officers and the petitioners were found innocent and they were not challaned and their names were shown in column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The summoning order has been passed only on the basis of statement of Neeraj Kumar recorded during trial and no other material witnesses were examined before moving of said application. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also relied upon various judgments to show that the Court should summon a person as additional accused only when the Court is satisfied that evidence against him would lead to conviction and the power of the Court for summoning of additional accused must be exercised with great care and caution as the Court is to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added as accused in the case. Mr. Baldev Singh further submits that only in case of compelling reasons, Court should summon additional accused. As per statement of Neeraj Kumar while appearing as PW-1, he has stated that on receiving information of the deceased, all family members reached J.B. Gupta Hospital, Bhiwani and petitioner Ram Niwas was present there by the side of the deceased which shows his innocent conduct. Petitioner Ram Niwas was attending marriage reception of a close relative at Delhi on 16.2.2009 and this plea was accepted by the police during investigation. During his statement, PW Neeraj Kumar did not mention anything with regard to demand of Rs. 5 lacs by way of dowry. Even as per statement of Randhir Singh, the father of deceased, the alleged demand of Rs. 5 lacs was made by co-accused Virender whereas there is no allegation against the petitioners in this respect. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors., 2000 CrLJ 2993, Sarabjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr., 2010 2 SCC(Cri) 141, Ram Singh and Ors. v. Ram Niwas and Anr., 2010 1 SCC(Cri) 1278 and of this Court in Isham Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, 2004 2 RCR(Cri) 279 in support of his contention.