CHAND RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 5.3.2013 [Annexure P1] passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide which application under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Banto, Joginder alias Pappu, Inder Singh and Tej Bhan, respondents No. 2 to 5, has been dismissed, is under challenge in this revision petition brought by Chand Ram under the provisions of section 401 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Chand Ram, the complainant married his daughter Darshana Bai with Bhagwan Dass 15 years ago. His daughter Darshana Bai had three issues. Bhagwan Dass had been addicted to liquor and he used to give beatings to his daughter on account of which his daughter had been living with him sometimes for months together. Darshana Bai committed suicide on 22.8.2012 and on the statement of Chand Ram, the case was registered with FIR No. 156 dated 22.8.2012 at Police Station Sadar, Tohana under section 306 IPC. After investigation, the police challaned Bhagwan Dass. An application was made for summoning Banto and three others under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. after recording of statement of Chand Ram at the trial and this application has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the statement of Chand Ram is sufficient to make out a case for summoning of the four respondents under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C. He has submitted that statement of Chand Ram recorded at the trial is reproduced in para No. 3 of the petition. According to him, learned Additional Sessions Judge has been wrong in rejecting the application.