SATVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C for summoning respondent No.2 was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that FIR No.344 dated 12.11.2014 was registered under Sections 498-A/304-B/323/301/34 Penal Code at Police Station Kanina on the basis of statement made by complainant-petitioner Satvir Singh, wherein, it was mentioned that his daughter-Neetu was married with accused Pawan Kumar on 09.02.2014 and sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but his daughter was still harassed for bringing less dowry. A demand for car was raised by her in-laws. She was also threatened to face consequences, in case, the car was not given. Thereafter, an information was received by the complainant on 12.11.2014 that his daughter Neetu was having severe pain in her stomach. On receiving the said information, the complainant, his brother and other respectables of the Village reached at the house of in-laws of Neetu and found that his daughter had already died. Therefore, the complaint was made to the police and on that basis, the FIR was registered against husband-Pawan Kumar, Shiv Kumar and Raj Kumar-brothers-in-law (jeth) and Mukesh Devi, mother-in-law of deceased-Neetu. Above said three accused except her brother-in-law (jeth)-Shiv Kumar, were charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 323 and 201 IPC. Statement of complainant-petitioner was also recorded while appearing as PW-9, wherein, it was stated that accused-Shiv Kumar (respondent No.2) was also involved in the commission of offence along with other accused but challan was not presented against him. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C to summon respondent No.2 as an additional accused but the same was dismissed on 14.07.2015 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul is not based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. The name of respondent No.2 was specifically mentioned in the FIR and specific allegations regarding giving of beatings to deceased-Neetu and demanding Swift Car from father of the deceased were also levelled against him. Even in the statement of complainant-petitioner Satvir Singh recorded while appearing as PW-9, there was specific mention of his role and involvement in the commission of offence but still the application has been dismissed. Learned counsel also submits that similar allegations were there against other accused and they were challaned but respondent No.2 was found innocent by the Investigating Agency and was kept in column No.2.