JUDGMENT
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 7. During the trial of the case before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal against accused (1) Major Singh (2) Jagir Kaur and (3) Nachhatar Singh for the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) respondents 1 to 7 were summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) after the statement of the petitioner was recorded in the Trial Court. However, at the time of framing of the charge, respondents were discharged. This is a revision against the said order.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is a prima facie evidence against respondent No. 1 under Section 304-B of the I.PC. He has drawn my attention to Annexure P-2, which is a copy of the application given by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal. It is alleged therein that the daughter of the petitioner always told her mat they had a neighbour named Nek Singh son of Sarwan Singh (respondent No. 1) who had illicit relations with her mother-in-law and that he always kept on sitting in the house of her daughter and used to taunt her and abuse her to bring more money from her parents. He was like a family member, and that her daughter told her that he used to harass her a lot. Whenever she complained to Major Singh or her mother-in-law, they used to take me side of Nek Singh. The question now is whether the provisions under Section 304-B, I .P.C. can be made applicable against Nek Singh if the allegations against him in the said application are treated as correct. There is no other evidence shown to me for involving Nek Singh as a relative.Section304-B or the I.P-C. reads as below:
“304-B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any bums or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years other marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.”
The accused for such an offence, therefore, has/have to be the husband or relative(s) of the husband in connection with demand for dowry. It is an admitted fact .that respondent No. 1 is not related but only illicit relations are alleged against him. This being so, respondent No. 1 cannot be involved for the offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. as a relative.
3. The next question is whether respondents can be tried for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. For that, the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the Trial Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he wants to make a request for examining more witnesses on this point so that the allegations against the respondents for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. can be proved. At present the position is that respondents were called under Section 319 and discharged. Section 319 of the Code reads as under:
“319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.- (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summpned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under Sub-section (1) then-
(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
(b) subjected to the provisions of Clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.”
The Trial Court was not satisfied with the evidence on record for charging the respondent under Section 201 I.P.C. The Court can after further evidence is led, consider the same and take action under Section 319 of the Code for trying the respondents if it thinks fit to do so. At present, the statement of the complainant is recorded and the evidence of other witnesses is still to be recorded. The evidence at present on record is not sufficient to frame the charge under Section 201 of the I.P.C. This being so, it will be premature at this stage to hold that there is an evidence against the respondents for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. so as to charge them under Section 319 of the Code. Therefore, this petition cannot succeed for that purpose also. However, it will be proper to make it clear that rejection of this petition shall not come in the way of summoning the respondents again under Section 319 of the Code after the evidence is led in this regard.
4. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that this respondent No. 1 can be again summoned and charged for the offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The learned Counsel for the respondents argued that respondent No. 1 not being a relative of the husband is incapable of committing offence under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. and, therefore, he cannot be tried in this case even for offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. However, as I have held that the question of summoning and framing the charge under Section 201 I.P.C., can be considered later if found proper, at this point can also be considered by the Trial Court at the later stage. I do not express any opinion on this submission made at this belated stage.
5. This revision petition is disposed of in the manner mentioned above.