Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed to challenge order dated 6.6.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which, an application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of Reena as an additional accused has been dismissed.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that FIR No. 436 dated 11.10.2013 was registered on the basis of complaint made by Leelu Ram (PW -5), father of the deceased, under Sections 498 -A, 302, 304 -B and 34 IPC at Police Station Pataudi, District Gurgaon against husband -Amit, father -in -law -Mahabir Yadav, mother -in -law -Maya Devi, brother -in -law -Vipin (devar) and sister -in -law Reena (devrani). The challan was presented against husband, father -in -law, mother -in -law and brother -in -law of the deceased. Sister -in -law -Reena was found innocent in the investigation and was kept in column No. 2 of the challan. Thereafter after recording of statement of complainant -Leelu Ram (PW -5), an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of Reena as an additional accused to face trial along with other co -accused, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 6.6.2014, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that allegations qua to Reena, who is sought to be summoned as an additional accused, are at par with the allegations against other accused who are facing trial but she was wrongly found innocent by the police. The name of said Reena was specifically mentioned in the FIR along with other accused and a specific role was attributed to her. Not only complainant -Leelu Ram but Kanwar Singh (PW -6) has also stated about involvement of Reena. It has come in the statements of PW -5 and PW -6 that all the accused harassed the deceased for demand of dowry and this fact was conveyed to the complainant on telephone. Learned counsel further contends that the summoning Court has not taken into consideration all these facts while dismissing the application.
(3.) HEARD the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents available on file.;