CRR-2541-2017(OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRR-2541-2017(OM)
Date of decision:-20.7.2018

Hariom
…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others
…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Present: Mr.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr.Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr.J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.

****
H.S. MADAAN, J.

This revision petition has been filed by petitioner – Hariom –

the complainant feeling aggrieved by order dated 20.5.2017 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court), Bhiwani vide which

the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of Om Parkash

and Bhateri as additional accused had been dismissed.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that complainant Hariom

had lodged an FIR in question with the police by submitting a written

1 of 5
24-07-2018 10:59:42 :::
CRR-2541-2017(OM) -2-

application alleging therein that his eldest daughter Renu was married

with Somesh son of Om Parkash, resident of Rudrol, District Bhiwani on

14.2.2012 and at that time he had given sufficient dowry, however, after

marriage of Renu, her husband Somesh and his parents Om Parkash and

Bhateri were not satisfied with the dowry given and they started harassing

and maltreating her by raising demands of further dowry articles.

According to the complainant, he tried to meet their demands once or

twice but keeping in view his financial position, he was unable to accede

to their increasing demands. He further stated that Renu was in family

way and on 18.8.2016 at about 8:00 p.m., he made a telephonic call at her

matrimonial home so as to talk with Renu but her father-in-law told him

that due to low blood pressure, Renu had died; that on the next day i.e. on

19.8.2016 in the morning, he and his relatives saw dead body of Renu in

the mortuary of General Hospital, Dadri and observed that there was froth

in her nose. The complainant alleged that Somesh along with his parents

had killed Renu by administering poison to her out of greed for more

dowry.

On the basis of that written application submitted by the

complainant, formal FIR for the offences under Section 304-B, 498-A

and 34 IPC was registered. The matter was investigated. Accused Somesh

was arrested on 27.8.2016, who during the course of interrogation

suffered a disclosure statement and thereafter, offence under Section 302

was added. It was found to be case of murder and not dowry death. It

came out that Somesh had committed murder of Renu by strangulating her

in a fit of anger, whereas his parents Om Parkash (father) and Bhateri

2 of 5
24-07-2018 10:59:42 :::
CRR-2541-2017(OM) -3-

(mother) were found to be innocent as they were not present at the scene

of crime on the fateful day. After completion of investigation, Somesh

was challaned.

During trial, the prosecution moved an application under

Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge(Exclusive Court), Bhiwani vide a detailed order. The latest law on

the subject has been discussed. Para No.18 of the order, which is quite

relevant and is reproduced as under:-

“Concededly, the matter was investigated by the police

after the FIR had been recorded on the statement of the

complainant and, during investigation, the police found that

Om Parkash and Bhateri were innocent as no case was made

out against the above-named family members of the accused

on account of their being not at home at the relevant time.

Significantly, Investigating Officer PW9 ASI Badri Prashad

admitted, during the course of cross-examination that the

investigation of this case remained with him from 19.8.2016

to 15.9.2016 but DSP Kuldeep Singh and SHO Suraj Singh

verified the investigation. He admitted that it was correct that

initially, this case was reregistered under Sections

304B/498A/34 IPC but during course of investigation by him

and on verification made by DSP and the then SHO, it came

up that this was not a case of dowry death as no demand of

dowry was raised at any point of time by the accused, so,

Sections 302/316 IPC were added in this case and Sections

3 of 5
24-07-2018 10:59:42 :::
CRR-2541-2017(OM) -4-

304B/498A/34 were deleted. He admitted that it was also

correct that it came up during the course of investigation that

Somesh accused alone was responsible for the death of the

deceased and his parents were not involved in this case in

any manner. He admitted that it was also correct that it came

up during the course of investigation that Om Parkash, father

of accused had gone to village Gokal and Bhateri, the mother

of the accused was outside the house. In this manner,

consequent upon this investigation, both the proposed

accused were held to be innocent of any crime against the

deceased by the investigating agency and I am also of the

view that the conclusion drawn by the police is absolutely

correct. Even a plain reading of the FIR shows that

extremely vague allegations were levelled without any basis.

Under these facts and circumstances, the complicity of Om

Parkash and Bhateri in the crime is not established and no

substantive evidence exists against them which would

warrant their prosecution with a good chance of conviction.

At the cost of repetition, in the absence of any specific

allegation, the proposed accused cannot be allowed to suffer

at the hands of complainant.

In the present case, I do not find any such illegality or

infirmity with the impugned order much less apparent on the face of it.

The order is certainly not in violation of settled principles of criminal

4 of 5
24-07-2018 10:59:42 :::
CRR-2541-2017(OM) -5-

jurisprudence, which might have called interference by this Court while

exercising revisional jurisdiction.

Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.

20.7.2018 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

5 of 5
24-07-2018 10:59:42 :::