SWEETY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'The present petition has been directed against the order dated 4.5.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for offence punishable under Section 304 -B of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") by invoking provisions of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(in short"Cr.P.C.").

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the married sister -in -law of deceased Babneet Kaur who performed love marriage with Balpreet Singh on 14.4.2012. On completion of investigation in FIR No. 149 dated 18.12.2012 registered at Police Station Division No. 8, Ludhiana on the statement of Davinder Singh, father of the deceased, challan was presented in the court against Balpreet Singh(husband), Manjinder Singh (father -in -law) and Manjit Kaur (mother -in -law) as the petitioner and her husband were found to be innocent. An application was filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner and her husband Hitesh Ghai @ Honey which was partly allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide impugned order dated 4.5.2013 whereby the petitioner was ordered to be summoned but prayer for summoning her husband was declined. Operation of the impugned order dated 4.5.2013 was stayed qua the petitioner and during pendency of proceedings before this Court, trial against the accused already before the court stood concluded and they have been convicted for the offence charged against them.

(3.) IT is argued that during trial before the Court of Sessions, Davinder Singh complainant and Taranjit Kaur, paternal aunt (Bua) of the deceased were examined and in their testimonies (Annexures P -5 and P -6), they have not attributed any such allegations against the petitioner to prima facie constitute an offence punishable under Section 304 -B IPC, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. For this purpose, counsel has carried me through statements of the aforesaid material witnesses and highlighted the relevant portion wherein name of the petitioner or her husband figured in their testimonies. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has noticed that the petitioner performed love marriage with Hitesh Ghai @ Honey and for that reason, parents of the petitioner did not have cordial relations with their son -in -law and thus, annoyance of parentsin -law of the deceased on account of her love marriage with Balpreet Singh is understandable.