The judgment emphasized the need for evidence to disclose the commission of the offense by the person not originally accused and the exercise of judicial discretion to advance the cause of criminal justice. It highlighted the requirement for the court to be extra-cautious while exercising the discretion and the need for compelling reasons to proceed against other accused.

R.C.Kathuria, J.

1. Lajpat Rai-petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 16.3.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal during the trial of the case bearing FIR No. 149 dated 24.5.1991 registered under Section 304-B I.P.C. whereby he had been summoned as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code).

2. The essential facts to focus the controversy involved in this petition have to be noticed. Lajpat Rai-petitioner had married Usha Rani daughter of Kishan Chand on 15.4.1990. On 24.5.1991 she attempted to commit suicide by burning herself as a result of which she succumbed to the injuries on 8.6.1991 in the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. During the period she was admitted in the hospital, her dying declaration was recorded wherein she stated that her father-in-law and mother-in-law used to harass her for bringing less dowry. She also stated that she had been harassed by them for not bringing Vicky (moped) and show case in the dowry and that they had used intemperate language to her. Because of the harassment faced by her from her in-laws, she set herself on fire with the help of kerosene oil at 9.10 p.m. She also stated that she had been admitted in the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak by her husband and father-in-law on 17.5.1991 and earlier to that she was taken to Civil Hospital, Kaithal. After her death inquest proceedings were held and during those proceedings Kishan Chand, father and Om Parkash, brother of the deceased attributed the harassment to only Punnu Ram, father-in-law and Bhagwani Devi, mother-in-law of Usha Rani deceased as stated by Usha Rani in her dying declaration referred to above. Parmeshwari Devi, mother of Usha Rani, in her police statement recorded on 26.5.1991 had stated that about one and half months earlier her daughter told her that her mother-in-law and father-in-law had made a demand of moped and show case which was not given to her in dowry and for that reason they had taunted her. This fact was narrated by her to Om Parkash and as thereafter she had fallen ill, she could not talk to the in-laws of her daughter Usha Rani. On completion of the investigation, the Police submitted a report under Section 173 of the Code against Bhagwani Devi and Punnu Ram under Sections 304-B and 498-A I.P.C.

3. During the course of trial statement of Kishan Chand, father of Usha Rani deceased was recorded on 20.8.1992, wherein, he named Lajpat Rai as well for commission of the crime along with Darshan, brother-in-law, and Usha, sister- in-law, of the deceased. During the course of his cross-examination an application for summoning Lajpat Rai under Section 319 of the Code was moved from the side of the prosecution which prayer was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal as per order dated 9.10.1992 Lajpat Rai was summoned to face trial under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. This order was challenged by Lajpat Rai by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 11959-M of 1992 and the impugned order was set aside. Thereafter cross-examination of Kishan Chand was completed. On 7.1.1994, again an application was filed by Kishan Chand through Public Prosecutor seeking summoning of Lajpat Rai as an accused to face trial along with other co-accused under Section 319 of the Code which was accepted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide order dated 16.3.1994. It is this order which has been challenged in the present petition.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused, while assailing the order dated 16.3.1994 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, has strenuously urged before me that the trial Judge failed to take into account that there was no material on record including the statement of Kishan Chand which could form the basis for the conclusion that the petitioner-accused is guilty of the offence for which he had been summoned to face trial and for that reason the impugned