The power to summon a person as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only when strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person, which would reasonably lead to conviction.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - The instant criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge the order dated 01.09.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kapurthala whereby, the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of respondents No.2 to 6 as accused to face the trial has been dismissed.

2. In brief, the facts of the case as stated in the FIR are that a marriage was solemnized of the deceased daughter of the petitioner with Jaspal Singh, out of which wedlock one son namely Tejvir Singh was born. It was alleged that when Jaspal Singh was married to the deceased, he had not disclosed that he was already married to a girl at Philippines, which fact came to their knowledge after the birth of the minor son. It has been mentioned that because of this reason fights had been taking place between both the deceased and Jaspal Singh and said Jaspal Singh started beating his daughter daily. On 25.09.2014, at around 8/9 p.m., deceased Rajwinder Kaur had called him that her husband is beating her and minor son, on which they reached the matrimonial home of his daughter on 26.09.2014 at around 4.30/5.00 p.m. On reaching there, he saw her dead body was lying upside down, with grievous injuries on her eyes, cheeks and all over the face. The minor son of the deceased was also dead. The matter was reported to the police and after completing the investigation, a challan was presented against accused Jaspal Singh, husband of the deceased and respondents No.2 to 6 were kept in column No.2. Thereafter, charges were framed and evidence of the prosecution started, in which petitioner-complainant Harjap Singh appeared as PW1 and his further examination-inchief was deferred as the prosecution wanted to move an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of respondents No.2 to 6 herein as accused to face the trial. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the prosecution was dismissed by the trial court by an order dated 01.09.2016, which order has been assailed in this criminal revision.

3. Mr. P. S. Ahluwalia learned counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that respondents No.2 to 6, who are relatives of accused-Jaspal Singh, had played an active role in the killing of daughter of the petitioner-complainant along with her minor son. It is argued that the petitioner herein while appearing as PW1 had deposed before the trial court the mode and manner in which his daughter and the minor grandson were killed. It is argued that this is a case of a double murder of a young woman and her minor child, with an eye on the property of the husband. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 1 RCR(Cri) 623 and Sunil Kumar Gupta and others, Criminal Appeal No.395 of 2019(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4626 of 2017, decided on 27.02.2019.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6 contends that false allegations have been leveled against respondents No.2 to 6, only on the basis that they are related to Jaspal Singh, husband of the deceased. It is argued that respondents No.2 to 6 are totally innocent and had not committed the alleged offence. It is submitted that a false story has been projected by the petitioner, just to rope in all the other family members of Jaspal Singh, who had no concern with the family affairs of Jaspal Singh. It is also contended that during the course of investigation, respondents No.2 to 6 were found to be false by the investigating agency. It is pointed out that Jaspal Singh used to reside separately along with his wife and son. It is also argued that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order, which has been passed taking into account the evidence and material available on record.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their valuable assistance, have gone through the case file.

6. The law