RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the impugned summoning order dated 23.04.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. for summoning respondents Nos. 2 to 4 was dismissed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that before passing the impugned order dated 23.04.2014, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, has misread the legal position with regard to the exercise of powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code'). He further argued that after investigation, the police submitted a final report under Sec. 173 of the Code only against Surender, husband of the deceased; and the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were found innocent. There are direct allegations in connection with and on account of demand of dowry against respondents Nos. 2 to 4. The deceased was residing in a joint family and set at ablazed by her inlaws. After her death, without informing the parents of the deceased, the in-laws cremated her body. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 28.05.2013, has rightly summoned the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 as additional accused, on an application filed by the prosecution, but that order was set aside by this Court and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court to decide the application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C., afresh in accordance with law. Thereafter, the learned trial Court recorded further evidence of PW5 to PW11. The learned trial Court at the final stage dismissed the application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C., vide impugned order dated 23.04.2014. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 4 has contended that the order dated 23.04.2014 has been rightly passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. The husband of deceased is the main accused who is facing the trial. The learned trial Court after considering the entire material on record, has rightly observed that there is nothing material on record on the basis of which, the discretionary power can be exercised in favour of the prosecution. The deceased was married to main accused two years prior to the occurrence and after two years, she set herself ablaze. He further contended that there is nothing material on record which would show that respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were demanding dowry. Respondent No.2 is brother in-law, respondent No.3 is mother in-law and respondent No.4 is sister in-law; they were similarly situated as like the deceased they were not likely to be benefited from the dowry in any manner. The order is legal and there is no miscarriage of justice.

(3.) Learned counsel also refers to Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2014 (5) SCC 568.