IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-156-2021 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 Harjeet Singh and another …..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present : Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana.

None for respondent No.2.

****

NEERJA K. KALSON, J . (Oral)

1. The present revision petition is filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking setting aside /quashing of the impugned order dated 14.01.2021 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, (Exclusive Court for Heinous Crime against Women), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant for summoning Harjit Singh and Gurmail Kaur as additional accused, has been allowed to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), in Criminal Case No. SC-164/2019 arising out of FIR No. 100 dated 25.03.2019 under Section 201, 304-B, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Chhapar, District Yamuna Nagar.

2. The material facts underpinning the present petition are that a FIR No. 100 was lodged on 25.03.2019 at Police Station Chhapar, District Yamuna Nagar on the statement of Kulwinder Singh, the brother of the deceased Kuldeep Kaur @ Manju. As per the allegations, the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty for demand of dowry by her husband (Karnail Singh) and present petitioners, leading to her unnatural death within seven years of marriage at her matrimonial home at Village Jagdholi. It was further alleged that all the accused persons resided together in the same home.

3. During the course of the police investigation, the Investigating Officer conducted a thorough inquiry into the allegations, wherein the investigation revealed that the petitioners, namely Harjit Singh and Gurmail Kaur, were not present at the scene of the incident at the relevant time, as evidenced by their mobile phone location data, which established their presence at Kapal Mochan, Bilaspur. Consequently, the Investigating Officer found the petitioners innocent and, in the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., placed them in Column No. 2.

4. The trial commenced against Karnail Singh. During the trial, the complainant, Kulwinder Singh (PW2), reiterated the general allegations made in the FIR, asserting that the deceased was harassed for dowry by her husband and the present petitioners. Subsequently, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant seeking to summon the petitioners as additional accused.

5. The Ld. Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated

14.01.2021, allowed the said application, summoning the petitioners to face trial under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. The Ld. Trial Court while allowing the application, specifically observed that Section 304-B IPC does not pertains to a single instance but is a "continuing offence". Furthermore, cohabitation of all the persons in the same house suggests involvement, and that the evidence on record shows prima facie guilt of the present petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned order dated 14.01.2021 is unsustainable in law and on facts. It was submitted that the Ld. Trial Court gravely erred by overlooking critical pieces of evidence that unequivocally point towards the innocence of the petitioners. Firstly, the police investigation, based on scientific evidence of mobile phone location data, had established a clear alibi for the petitioners, placing them away from the scene of the incident. This finding, arrived at after a meticulous investigation, was arbitrarily disregarded by the trial court.

7. Secondly, and more significantly, the Ld. Trial Court completely failed to consider the suicide note penned by the deceased herself. This