Sumitra v. State Of Haryana And ANR

CRR-1924-2016 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1924-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 03.05.2017 Sumitra ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. D.R. Singla, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

**** RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner is mother-in-law of the complainant and has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 18.03.2016 under Sections 323, 325, 307, 498-A and 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Vide order dated 22.08.2016 passed in CRR-3592-2015, the petition filed by brother-in-law and husband of complainant was partly allowed and the impugned order was modified to the extent that the charge under Section 307 was deleted and the trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law. The husband and brother-in-law of the complainant are facing trial under Section 323, 325, 498-A and 506 IPC read with Naresh Kumar 2017.05.10 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Section 34 IPC. The present petitioner is mother-in-law of the complainant

CRR-1924-2016 (O&M) -2and specific allegations have been attributed against her in the statement made by the complainant.

Keeping in view the above-facts, the impugned order is being modified to the extent that offence under Section 307 IPC against the present petitioner is hereby deleted and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the remaining offences along with other co-accused. The present revision petition is partly allowed. May 03, 2017 ( RITU BAHRI ) naresh.k JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Naresh Kumar 2017.05.10 15:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh