The main legal point established in the judgment is the sparing use of the power under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code, the requirements for invoking the section, and the need for reasonable prospects of conviction before summoning additional accused for trial.

M.M. Kumar, J. - This petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the prosecutrix Smt. Meena Devi challenges order dated 6.8.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar dismissing the application of the prosecution to summon Narender, Dhari, Sushila, Kamlesh and Rakesh Kumar under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code

2. Brief facts of the case for deciding the controversy raised in the instant petition are that Meena Devi prosecutrix-petitioner was married to one Parshotam S/o Kapoor Singh on 5.12.1999. She lodged an FIR No. 465 dated 12.10.2000 P.S. Jhajjar under Sections 498-A, 406/376 Indian Penal Code revealing allegations that sufficient dowry was given by her parents. Her husband is impotent and on 11.12.1999 at about 12.00 in the night, the brother of her husband namely one Darshan raped her against her wishes but with the consent of her husband Parshotam. Later on she was assured by all members of the family that she would be married to Darshan. No report was lodged and for that reason no complaint with regard to her rape was lodged. It is further alleged that her in-laws are demanding a scooter and golden chain for every member of the family to keep her at the matrimonial home. They have also expressed the desire that her sister be married to Darshan. In this way she was to continue to be legally wedded wife of Parshotam and she would have baby. She has also named her mother-in-law Angoori, brother-in-law Rajinder and his wife Maya, her other brother-in-law Narender and Dhari @ Suresh, her brother-in-law Darshan, sisters in-law Sushila and Kamlesh and husband of Kamlesh namely Rakesh for harassing her on account of bringing less dowry. The police investigated the allegations and put up the challan against the husband of the prosecutrix-petitioner. Parshottam, her brother-in-law Darshan, mother-in-law, Angoori, brother-in-law Rajinder and his wife Maya. However, Narender and his wife Dhari, Sushila, Kamlesh and her husband Rakesh were kept in column No. 2 as no evidence was found against them. However, an application was filed under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code requesting the trial Court to summon Narender, Dhari, Sushila, Kamlesh and Rakesh to face trial under Sections 498-A, 406 and 376 Indian Penal Code alongwith other co-accused. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, dismissed the application by observing as under:

"A thorough look at the complaint dated 12.10.2002 preferred by the prosecutrix reveals that against Narender etc. who have been sought to be summoned by way of present application there are only general allegations of demand of dowry and they have nothing to do with the alleged allegation of rape with the alleged prosecutrix. In authority Dr. Sant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2001 (Criminal Court Judgments) 772, our own High Court while dealing with the scope of section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code has laid down that power vested under this section has to be used sparingly and primarily to advance the cause of criminal justice but not as an handle at the hands of the complainant to cause harassment. Keeping in mind this aforesaid proposition of law this Court is of the considered view that the present application containing no merits deserves dismissal and the same is hereby ordered to be dismissed."

3. Mr. D.S. Bali, learned senior counsel has vehemently argued that specific allegations have been levelled against Narender, Dhari, Sushila, Kamlesh and Rakesh Kumar showing demand of dowry by them and also showing that they have promised that she would be married to Darshan and, therefore, that would constitute sufficient basis for the Court to summon them to stand trial. The learned counsel has stressed that all of them have significantly contributed to the commission of offences under Sections 406 and 498-A Indian Penal Code and it was their help that Darshan could commit rape on the prosecutrix-petitioner. Therefore, the learne