Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.: (Oral) - This revision is directed against the order dated 29.05.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari who dismissed the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant seeking to summon respondents no.2 to 6.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the issues raised in the petition are necessary to be laid. Jai Singh lodged a complaint against his son-in-law. He had levelled allegations of dowry demand and torture. His daughter had jumped into the village pond. Sumitra died on 30.08.2013. The death was within 7 years of her marriage. The FIR was registered under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. The complainant levelled allegations only against Dinesh. The police investigated the matter and filed the challan against Gainda Ram, the brother-in-law as they found a suicide note. At the trial, the complainant levelled allegations against the husband and his relatives. An application was filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., seeking to summon Dinesh, the husband, two brother-in-laws (Devar), fatherin- law and mother-in-law. Allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry were levelled against all the members of the family. It was pleaded that they should have been challaned as the death was within 7 years of the marriage and they should be summoned and tried along with the accused who had been challaned.

3. The trial Court dismissed the application observing that though the allegations were only against the husband but during investigation, involvement of Gainda Ram was found and he was challaned. It had also noted that a suicide note written by the deceased was recovered by the police and as per the suicide note allegations were levelled against Gainda Ram, the brother-in-law who had raped the victim and that had shattered her and she was forced to commit suicide. It noted that the FSL report had been tendered on record wherein opinion had been given that the writing was that of the deceased and there was no reason to summon any other accused.

4. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant had approached this Court.

5. I have heard counsel for both the sides.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that there was a mistake and another FIR number had been mentioned and it should be FIR No.203. The counsel has referred to Annexure P-1. The counsel further submits that he was pressing the application only against the husband. It was urged that brother-in-law was challaned when the accusations made by the petitioner were against the husband and the deceased had come back to the parents house five days ago and had narrated about the harassment she was facing and it was in respect to demand of dowry. It was urged that after three days the suicide note was recovered at the instance of the accused and the allegations in the FIR have been reiterated by the complainant in his statement before the Court, therefore, the additional accused should be summoned to face trial.

7. The submission on the other hand was that though the FIR contained allegations against the husband but a suicide note was recovered and the police investigated the matter from that angle as well and had challaned the brother-in-law. It was urged that the petitioner had approached this Court with a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for direction to the police to register the FIR against the husband and other relatives but that was dismissed and the Court had refused to order reinvestigation. It was urged that the suicide note was sent for comparison.

8. The State counsel states that the FSL report had been received and it had been reported that the handwriting was that of the deceased. It was urged that in the suicide note the deceased had absolved the husband or any of his family members and the witnesses have been examined who have not supported the prosecution. Translation of the suicide note was also placed on record.

9. In the complaint made to the police, the complainant had named the husband and had accused him of