SWARAN SINGH Vs. GURPREET SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conspectus of the relevant facts and material, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that the marriage of Gurpreet Kaur, daughter of complainant Swaran Singh (petitioner) (for brevity "complainant"), was solemnized with Gurpreet Singh son of Surat Singh (respondent No.1) on 1.7.2009, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. She was stated to have been treated with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry articles and cash, culminating into her death on 7.8.2009.

(2.) Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that Gurpreet Kaur had died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives for and in connection with the demand of dowry. Thus, the accused have committed the offence of dowry death. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR, bearing No.166 dated 7.8.2009 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 406 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala. After the completion of the investigation, the police has submitted the challan/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.PC in the trial Court.

(3.) Having completed all the codal formalities and framed the charges against the accused for the commission of indicated offences, the case was slated for prosecution evidence. As soon as, the statements of Swaran Singh complainant (PW10) and Smt.Pritam Kaur (PW11) were recorded, then, the complainant moved an application (Annexure P1) for summoning Surat Singh and Balwinder Kaur as additional accused under section 319 Cr.PC. The Sessions Judge, dismissed the application of the complainant, by means of impugned order dated 14.6.2010.