LAWS(P&H)-2007-2-54

HUKAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On February 19, 2007
HUKAM CHAND Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition impugning the order dated 2.5.2006 vide which the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial pursuant to the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that Uma Devi, daughter of complainant Ashok Kumar was married to one Anil Kumar on 1.5.2004. Soon after the solemnization of the marriage, Rajesh Kumar, brother of Anil Kumar died in a road accident. After his death, Anil Kumar along with his brother Hukam Chand and sister-in- law Savita started maltreating Uma and raised demand of car on account of dowry. They tried to oust her from her matrimonial home as they were interested in rehabilitating Anita, widow of late Rajesh Kumar. Uma Devi died on 22.10.2004. The complainant alleged that his daughter Uma has been strangulated by accused Anil Kumar along with Hukam Chand and Savita who are the present petitioners. The police investigated the matter and found the petitioners innocent and it is contended that their names were mentioned in Column No. II. Anil Kumar was charge-sheeted under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 IPC. He is since facing trial. During the course of recording of evidence, the prosecution examined Ashok Kumar as PW-1 who reiterated his allegations as made in the FIR and stated that the petitioners had made a plan to oust his daughter Uma Devi from her matrimonial home so that Anita, widow of Rajesh Kumar could be married to Anil Kumar. This became the cause of harassment of Uma Devi and demands of dowry etc. were also made upon Uma Devi. After recording the statement of the complainant, an application was moved by the complainant for summoning of the petitioners under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. The trial court, while exercising its jurisdiction under the aforesaid section, has summoned the petitioners to stand trial vide the impugned order dated 2.5.2006.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that the petitioners were clearly involved as Savita Devi was the sister of Anita and was therefore interested in her rehabilitation by ousting Uma Devi from her matrimonial home.