JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court by the filing present revision petition against the impugned order dated 02.12.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in the case bearing No. SC-1642021, titled 'State vs. Shubham Modgill', whereby the petitioner has been summoned as an additional accused to face a joint trial under Sections 304-B, 34, 201 of the IPC.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Succinctly, the facts are that the marriage of the youngest daughter (now deceased) of the complainant was solemnized with the accused, namely, Shubham Modgill on 30.04.2021. As per the complaint, ample dowry articles were given to the accused and his family members during the time of the wedding yet, they were not satisfied. As a result, the daughter of the complainant was subjected to harassment and cruelty. On 30.06.2021, at around 7 PM, the sister-in-law of the deceased called one of the relatives of the complainant and asked him to reach their residence immediately. Upon reaching the matrimonial house of the deceased, the relative learnt that the daughter of the complainant was dead. The complainant was apprised of this unfortunate incident. Subsequently, the complainant along with his relatives reached the residence of the accused and saw that his daughter was hanging from a ceiling fan. The complainant alleges that his daughter had been killed by her husband, Shubham Modgill and his family members including the petitioner, namely Gautam Sharma, who is the brother-in-law of the deceased.

3. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner is innocent and that his name was wrongly added in the FIR, bearing No. 0149, dated 01.07.2021. Consequently, a report was prepared by the police officials declaring the petitioner to be innocent (Annexure P-4). However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot observed the following in the impugned order, vide which the petitioner was summoned as an additional accused:

"In the police report under Section 173 CrPC, no reason has been assigned by the investigating agency as to on which ground said Gautam Sharma was found innocent or as to how the allegations of complainant against said Gautam Sharma were found false. After careful perusal of the police report under Section 173 CrPC and annexed documents, there appears to be prima facie case against said Gautam Sharma for having committed an offence punishable under Section 304-B/34/201 IPC. While exercising my power under Section 193 CrPC, said Gautam Sharma son of Late Rajesh Kumar, resident of Lajpat Nagar, Kotkapura, now resident of Street no.5, Heera Singh Nagar, Kotkapura is summoned as additional accused to face joint trial with the present accused.

Let, the non-bailable arrest warrants of said Gautam Sharma be issued for 03.01.2022."

Hence the present revision petition challenging the summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that that the learned Court below has acted in a completely mechanical manner, without applying its judicial mind and as such, has committed material irregularity in passing the impugned order. Firstly, the learned Additional Sessions Court, Faridkot erroneously used the power granted to it under Section 193 Cr.P.C. on committal of the case in order to summon the petitioner as an accused. Since the power of summoning an additional accused, if it at all had to be exercised in the present case, ought to have been exercised under Section 319 Cr.P.C. As per the Final Report, dated 22.09.2021 (Annexure P-4), filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has been explicitly declared to be innocent on the basis of the investigation conducted by the police officials, however, the learned trial Court has completely overlooked this fact and has summoned the petitioner as an additional accused without affording any reasons or justification. Such an order, completely subverts and erodes the very purpose of co