IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

231 CRR-805-2020(O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 ARSHAD HUSSAIN .....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The instant revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 07.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., seeking summoning of respondents No.2 to 5 as an additional accused in FIR No.193 dated 08.09.2018 under Sections 304-B, 328, 406, 498-A and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Bahin, District Palwal, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on the statement made by the complainant/petitioner, alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with Nasihat on 22.06.2012, at which time sufficient dowry was given, including household articles, jewellery, motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- in cash. It was alleged that accused Nasihat and his family members were dissatisfied with the dowry KAVITA NAIN and continuously harassed the deceased for additional dowry, particularly demanding a Swift car. Despite repeated requests by the complainant/petitioner and his family, the accused persisted in their demand and harassment continued. On 07.09.2018, the deceased informed her cousin over phone that she was being beaten and threatened with death for non- fulfillment of dowry demands, and on the following day, she was declared dead at Nalharh Hospital. The complainant/petitioner alleged that all the accused had murdered his daughter for not meeting their dowry demand.

3. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused(s), whereinunder respondents No.2 to 5 were exonerated by the investigating agency & their names in column No.2. Subsequently, the petitioner/complainant filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the private respondents as additional accused to face trial along with those already being tried. Vide the impugned order dated 07.01.2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has committed a manifest illegality in dismissing the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., despite the clear and categorical deposition of the complainant/petitioner, examined as PW-6, wherein he specifically named and attributed distinct roles to the private respondents, deposing that they had actively participated in the commission of the offence along with the husband who was already facing trial. It is submitted that the deposition of PW-6, coupled with the material available on record, was sufficient to establish more than a prima facie case against the private respondents. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court was duty bound to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon them as additional

2025.09.15 10:14 accused, but it has failed to do so, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joginder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1979 SC 339, wherein it was held that even those persons who may have been dropped by the police during investigation can still be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if evidence emerges during trial indicating their involvement in the offence. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned order dated

07.01.2020, be quashed and set aside.

5. The learned State counsel while relying on the contents of status report dated 22.08.2022 submits that after registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were undertaken,