RAJEEV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision has been filed seeking to challenge impugned order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Sessions Case No. 121 of 10.12.2014 in FIR No.197 dated 13.07.2014, under Sections 304-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Basti Jodehwal, Ludhiana, in which application under Section 319 Cr.P.C, seeking to summon respondent No. 2 and 3 as additional accused, has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that Mamta (since deceased) the real sister of the petitioner was married to Sandeep Kumar on 26.01.2014 as per Hindu rites and rituals. They were married for a short duration i.e. for a period of six months when Mamta died in her matrimonial home. FIR No.197 dated 13.07.2014 under Section 304-B IPC came to be registered at the behest of her brother Rajeev Sharma. In the said FIR, it was stated that Mamta's inlaws were given adequate dowry, however, they were not satisfied with the same. After a few days of marriage, they received a call from Mamta that her in-laws were taunting her that the marriage was not performed according to the in-laws financial status. After some time, the son-in-law started demanding a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to help him increase his business. On 27.02014, when his sister Mamta came to meet the family, she narrated that her in-laws family i.e husband Sonu alias Sandeep Kumar, mother-inlaw Mamta Rani, brother-in-law Mandeep Kumar, sister-in-law Neetu and father-in-law Vijay Kumar kept on taunting her to bring dowry and also used to physically abuse her. On 15th May 2014, there was a wedding in the family and the entire in-laws family of Mamta Rani were invited, but only Mamta Rani was sent to attend the wedding. Thereafter, no one came to take her back despite his sister calling her husband and mother-in-law to do so. She was categorically told that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs should be given before she could be taken back. The brother-in-law Mandeep Kumar and his wife, who is also from Amritsar, came and took his sister Mamta Rani back to her matrimonial home. A few days later i.e. on 1st June 2014, the complainant went to Amritsar and gave Rs. 50,000/- to Sandeep Kumar. Later they were informed of the death of Mamta in her matrimonial home. Complainant alleged that the death of his sister was due to the harassment and torture given to her by her husband and in-laws family on account of demand of dowry, she died by hanging herself from the fan.

(3.) On the registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated and respondents No. 2 and 3 namely Mandeep Kumar brother-in-law and Neetu were found innocent and were placed in column No. 2 by the police in the report furnished under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The complainant recorded a statement wherein he alleged that Mandeep Kumar and Neetu were demanding dowry from his sister Mamta and were also mentally torturing and harassing her. He further stated that Mandeep Kumar respondent No.2 and Neetu respondent No. 3 along with co-accused caused dowry death of his sister Mamta. Cross-examination was subsequently deferred and an application under section 319 Cr.P.C was filed by the prosecution. The matter was heard and the application was dismissed relying upon the enquiry conducted by ACP Ludhiana, which had taken into consideration the fact that Mandeep Kumar and his wife were residing separately, on two different floors. The Additional Sessions Judge also came to the conclusion that there was no occasion for Mandeep Kumar and Neetu to raise demand of Rs. 5 lakhs from deceased Mamta for expansion of business of Sandeep Kumar as they would not be a beneficiary in the expansion of the said business. Aggrieved against the order dismissing application under section 319 CR.P.C., the instant revision petition has been preferred.