The power to summon additional accused is an extraordinary jurisdiction reserved for credible evidence emerging during trial. It cannot be invoked by relying solely on allegations or testimonies that were already available during the initial investigation and charge-framing stage.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

1.Petitioners have filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 3.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Baghpat in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 2010, titled State Vs. Smt. Munesh and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 13 of 2010, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 D.P. Act, Police Station Baraut, District Baghpat, whereby the application under Section 3 19 Cr.P.C. filed by prosecution was allowed and the petitioners were summoned as additional accused.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the complainant's daughter namely, Rachna was married to Pradeep on 6.3.2009, who died of burn injuries on 8.1.2010, within a period of one year, whereupon the complainant-opposite party no.2 implicated the petitioners and others for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C. etc. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the subject F.I.R to argue that the allegations by complainant-Mainpal against the petitioner nos.3 to 5 (unmarried sisters of Pradeep-husband) are absolutely vague and no specific attribution of demand of dowry is made against them. Learned counsel further submits that the victim gave her statement before death and the said dying declaration only implicates Munesh (mother-in-law of victim), whereas nothing is mentioned by victim about other accused persons, therefore, after investigation, the petitioners were declared innocent and the charge sheet was filed against Pradeep and Munesh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the statements of Mainpal (P.W.-1) and Neeraj Kumar (P.W.-2) echoes the allegations in the F.I.R. and on the basis of those statements, the trial court proceeded to summon the petitioners as additional accused, but the said order is not sustainable. Learned counsel has pointed out that initially the impugned order dated 3.3.2011 was stayed by this Court qua the petitioner nos.3 to 5 namely, Renu, Nidhi @ Chinu and Ritu, whereas the petitioner nos.1 and 2 were directed to associate with the trial, and during the pendency of the revision petition, the trial ended in acquittal of four accused persons namely, Munesh (mother-in-law), Pradeep (husband), Nitin (brother-in- law) and Rishipal (father-in-law). The judgment of acquittal dated 29.3.2012 is on record as Annexure No.SA-1. Learned counsel prays that the impugned order dated 3.3.2011 be set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. while opposing the prayer has argued that the impugned order dated 3.3.2011 is based upon proper appreciation of testimonies of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and when the impugned order was passed, the trial was pending. He submits that the judgment of acquittal passed in respect of other accused persons may not be relevant as the evidence adduced during trial of the acquitted accused persons cannot be read qua the petitioners, if, the impugned order dated 3.3.2011 is upheld. He prays that the revision petition be dismissed.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submission, this Court finds that as far as petitioner nos.1 and 2 are concerned, qua them the revision petition is rendered infructuous, who faced the trial and stand acquitted vide judgment dated 29.3.2012.

6. Before analyzing the merits of the petition, it would be appropriate to have a glance of section 319 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.-(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has