DEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the application under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') moved by the State to issue summons to respondents no.2 to 6 herein for the purpose of arraying them as additional accused, the complainant has preferred the present revision.

(2.) The trial Court having found that the evidence adduced on the side of the complainant was not sufficient to summon the additional accused, chose to dismiss the aforesaid application. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/revision petitioner would, referring to the First Information Report lodged by the complainant as well as evidence of the complainant who was examined as PW-1, submit that a case has been made out as against respondents no. 2 to 6 as well. But unfortunately, the trial Court has dismissed the application praying for issuance of summons to additional accused. It is further submitted that a specific role has been attributed to the respondents no. 2 to 6, both in the First Information Report as well as in the evidence of PW-1. Therefore, the trial Court should not have taken a decision not to issue summons on the ground that sufficient evidence was not adduced to issue summons to respondents no. 2 to 6.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 to 4 would submit that only general allegations have been made by the complainant, both in the First Information Report as well as in his evidence, that respondents no. 2 to 6 also demanded dowry, gave beating and threw out the victim from the matrimonial house. Referring to the evidence of PW-1, he would further submit that the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased had set up a separate mess, therefore, there was no question of any demand of dowry by respondents. He would also submit that the trial Court has rightly declined to entertain the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.