The discretionary power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised based on strong and cogent evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the complainant/petitioner, claiming the following reliefs:

"Therefore, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordship may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this Revision Petition of the petitioner and order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Churu may kindly be ordered to be set aside and quashed and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before the learned court below may kindly be allowed."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant), are that on 12.03.2008, complainant/petitioner's daughter Renu was brutally murdered by her in-laws' and other family members in her in- laws' house at Sardarshahar, in connection with the demand of dowry. On the same day, the complainant/petitioner lodged an FIR bearing no.76/2008, at Police Station, Sardarshahar for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, against 11 members of her in-laws' family.

2.1 Thereafter, the concerned police authorities filed the charge sheet bearing no. 92/2008 for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC against Vijay Kumar (husband of the deceased), Shri Ram (father-in-law), and Anandi Devi (mother-in-law). Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet bearing no. 92A/2009 for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC against Ashok Kumar (brother-in-law) and Seema Devi (sister-in- law w/o Ashok Kumar).

3. It was further submitted that the statements of P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 were recorded, during trial and that the complainant/petitioner filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court, on the basis of statements of such witnesses and other evidences, for cognizance to be taken against the remaining six other persons. However, the learned Court below rejected the said application, vide the impugned order dated 05.07.2019.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submitted that the learned Court below committed a grave illegality in rejecting the aforementioned application preferred by the petitioner, more particularly, in light of the fact that the names of accused-respondents were already mentioned clear in the impugned FIR, owing to their involvement in the crime in question.

4.1 Learned counsel further submitted that in their statements, P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 have specifically mentioned about the involvement of the accused-respondents to the effect of harassing the deceased Renu (complainant/petitioner's daughter) in connection with the demand of dowry; the learned Court below however, completely ignored such material facts and the evidence available on the record.

4.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Court below passed a non-speaking order, and has erred in rejecting the application of the complainant/petitioner, while not making the due application of judicial mind, to the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as material available on the record before it.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the private respondents opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, and submitted that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order, after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on record before it.

6. Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as preferred by the complainant/petitioner, vide the impugned order during the trial ongoing before it, which is well reasoned, and therefore, does not merit any interference by this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

8. This Court observes that the concerned police authorities, at the first instance, filed a charge sheet against the husband and his par