IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 17.09.2025 GURMUKH SINGH ..... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Kuldeep Singh Siwach, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.

*****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in the present petition is to the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the prosecution for summoning respondent No.2 as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

2. Brief factual matrix of the present petition is that the instant FIR was registered on the statement of the brother of the deceased against one Jaspreet Singh as also respondent No.2, alleging that his sister was married to Jaspreet Singh. A child was also subsequently born out of the said wed-lock. However, despite sufficient dowry having been given at the time of her marriage, the sister of the complainant was continuously harassed by her husband and respondent No.2-mother-in-law on account of dowry, and was also subjected to beatings. Many times panchayats were convened but all in vain and some time, the complainant even gave more dowry to the accused persons. When the sister of the complainant used to visit her parental family, there she used to narrate the incidents of harassment and maltreatment meted to her at the hands of accused persons on account of dowry. On 20.08.2019, the complainant received a telephone call from the neighbourer of the accused that some poisonous substance had been consumed by his sister, upon which he reached her matrimonial home and found his sister in a serious condition, whereafter she was taken to CMC, Hisar where she died. Upon investigation, respondent No.2 was declared as innocent and provision of Section 34 of IPC was deleted. Subsequently, during trial of the case, complainant-Gurmukh Singh appeared in the witness box as PW-7 and reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR. It was at this stage, that an application for summoning respondent No.2 as an additional accused was moved by the public prosecutor, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 18.09.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been moved.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned trial Court is based on an erroneous appreciation of facts and is against the settled principles of law for summoning of additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It has been stated that respondent No.2 had been particularly named in the FIR and a specific role was attributed to her, that she along with other co-accused used to harass and even beat the deceased for the demand of dowry, and on the fateful day, administered poisonous tablets to her leading to her death.

However, despite the allegations being reiterated by the complainant on oath, the learned trial Court, by overlooking the same, dismissed the application filed before it, under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a very mechanical manner.

4. Learned State counsel submits that though respondent No.2 was initially declared innocent by the investigating agency, however, after specific and categoric allegations having been levelled against her by PW-7, an application was moved before the learned trial Court to summon respondent No.2 as an additional accused, but was dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 18.09.2023.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contends that mere sweeping allegations have been levelled against respondent No.2 in the FIR, and the materially improved deposition of the complainant. In more than 15 years of their marriage, no complaint was ever made by the deceased. In fact, neither the son of the deceased and respondent No.3 was competent to depose before the learned trial Court, nor