IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (238) CRR No. 1429 of 2022 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 Birbal Singh @ Birbal ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate and Ms. Monika Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Charu Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Gaurav Grover, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 6.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 25.4.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning respondents No. 2 to 6 as additional accused, has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the present FIR was registered on the statement made by the complainant, alleging therein that the marriage of his younger daughter was solemnized with Sunil (son of respondent No. 2) on 7.1.2019. He had spent about Rs. 8.00 lacs in the marriage, and given sufficient dowry. However, the in-laws of her daughter were not satisfied with the dowry and used to harass her by demanding dowry. It has also been alleged that the accused also pressurized the daughter of the complainant to give birth to a male child. The complainant had also spent Rs. 2.00 lacs in pilia ceremony but her in-laws were not happy. They gave beatings to his daughter and asked her to bring Rs. 1.00 lac from her parents. When she narrated the said incident to the complainant, he transferred Rs. 1.00 lac in the account of Sunil. It is also alleged by the complainant that on 05.6.2021, the complainant called his son-in-law several time, however, he did not give any response. Subsequently respondent No. 2 called the complainant and informed him that his daughter had been admitted in Civil Hospital. The complainant along with his family members reached the Civil Hospital, and it came to his knowledge that his daughter had been killed by the accused persons for not fulfilling the dowry demands. On the basis of said statement, present FIR was registered against the accused persons.

3. During investigation, respondent No. 2 to 6 were declared innocent and challan against accused Sunil was presented before the learned Court concerned. Charges were framed and the matter was adjourned for prosecution evidence. Subsequently, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved seeking summoning of respondents No. 2 to 6 as additional accused. Vide the impugned order dated 25.4.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 25.4.2022 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 respondents No. 2 to 6 had been specifically named in the FIR

2025.11.19 17:22 and a specific role had been attributed to them. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the investigating agency has not given any cogent reasoning while declaring the private respondents as innocent. Moreover, the learned trial Court has also not appreciated the evidence which displays the involvement of the private respondents in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 has levelled specific allegations of beatings as well as demand of dowry against all the proposed accused, and has also given a detailed account of the incidents in question. Moreover, the private respondents have been specifically named in the statements of the witnesses concerned recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It has also been argued that the statements of the complainant as well as other eye witnesses were duly corroborate