S.S.Sudhalkar, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 7. During the trial of the case before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal against accused (1) Major Singh (2) Jagir Kaur and (3) Nachhatar Singh for the offences under Sections498-A, 304-B/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) respondents 1 to 7 were summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) after the statement of the petitioner was recorded in the Trial Court. However, at the time of framing of the charge, respondents were discharged. This is a revision against the said order.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is a prima facie evidence against respondent No. 1 under Section 304-B of the I.PC. He has drawn my attention to Annexure P-2, which is a copy of the application given by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal. It is alleged therein that the daughter of the petitioner always told her mat they had a neighbour named Nek Singh son of Sarwan Singh (respondent No. 1) who had illicit relations with her mother-in-law and that he always kept