Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE challenge in the present petition is to the order dated July 26, 2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak whereby in an application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short 'the Code') by the prosecution, petitioners were summoned for the commission of offence punishable under Section 498 -A IPC and further the SHO, Police Station concerned was directed to file supplementary challan. Further challenge is to the order dated January 13, 2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -I, Rohtak whereby order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rohtak was upheld.
(2.) THE present proceedings arise out of matrimonial discord between husband and wife. Briefly the facts stated in the petition are that the marriage between respondent No. 2 and Surjit Singh was solemnized at Rohtak on June 29, 2001. The couple stayed together for less than three months as respondent No. 2 parted with company on September 25, 2001. On a complaint filed by respondent No. 2 -wife on April 16, 2002, formal FIR was registered in which names of various persons were mentioned. After registration of FIR, husband of respondent No. 2 was arrested. After enquiry, petitioners who though were named in the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 were found to be innocent and challan under Section 173 of the Code was filed only against husband Surjit Singh on May 23, 2002 for offences under Sections 498 -A/ 406 IPC. It is relevant to add that as mentioned in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak exparte decree of divorce was granted on November 23, 2002 in favour of respondent No. 2. During the trial, examination -in -chief of respondent No. 2/complainant was recorded on February 4, 2003. Immediately thereafter on the same date, an application under Section 319 of the Code was filed for summoning the petitioners. Learned Magistrate relying upon the statement of respondent No. 2 where she had levelled allegations against the petitioners that they used to demand dowry and torture her for bringing more dowry opined that there was prima facie evidence against the petitioners. Accordingly, they were directed to be summoned for commission of offence punishable under Section 498 -A IPC vide order dated July 26, 2004. In addition to this SHO, Police Station concerned was directed to file supplementary challan. Petitioners filed revision before learned Additional Sessions Judge taking various pleas, however, finding no merit therein, the revision petition was dismissed.
(3.) IN the above factual matrix, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners, who have been summoned in application filed under Section 319 of the Code have no role to play in the entire episode for the simple reason that they are distant relative living separately and old parents. He has narrated relationship and status of the petitioners viz a viz the husband which is as under: Petitioner No. 1 Raj Rani Wife of the brother of the husband; aged 39 years; has three children; living separately; has separate ration card. Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Shakuntla Widow sister of the husband; aged 52 years; having four girls; two married and two unmarried; living separately; has separate ration card. Petitioner No. 3 Smt. Varsha. Sister of the husband; aged 45 years; trained staff nurse; married; living in England. Petitioner No. 4 Naresh Brother of the husband; aged 45 years; married about 20 years ago; having three children; living separately; has separate ration card. Petitioner No. 5 Kuldeep Brother of the husband; married; aged 42 years; having two daughters. Petitioner No. 6 Smt. Sheela Wanti Mother of the husband; aged 80 years infirm and old lady. Petitioner No. 7 Vaisakhi Ram Father of the husband; infirm; aged 86 years.;