[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Crlr / 552U / 2025Monu vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 May, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:20569]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 253/2025
Monu S/o Sh. Sant Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o House No.
2220, Bhadra Road, Jawahar Nagar, Hisar, Haryana.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Suresh S/o Nihal Singh, R/o Village Channi Bari, Tehsil
Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh.
3. Bhagwani Devi W/o Sadhu Ram, R/o Village Channi Bari,
Tehsil Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh.
4. Radha W/o Late Banwari, R/o Village Channi Bari, Tehsil
Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh.
5. Savitri W/o Nihal Singh, R/o Village Channi Bari, Tehsil
Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh.
6. Nihal Singh S/o Chattar Singh, R/o Village Channi Bari,
Tehsil Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh.
7. Chandrawati W/o Late Shiv Dayal, R/o Village Channi
Bari, Tehsil Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh.
8. Kavita W/o Subhash, R/o Village Ninan,tehsil Bhadra,
Dist. Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Devasi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
Mr. Bhoop Singh Choudhary
Mr. Manoj Choudhary
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 12:12:42 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/05/2026 at 09:39:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20569] (2 of 5) [CRLR-253/2025]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
ORDER
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 05/03/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 05/03/2026
FULL JUDGMENT OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/05/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of filing the instant revision petition, challenge has
been laid to the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra in Sessions Case No.7/2021
whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section
319 Cr.P.C. came to be rejected.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are
that an FIR was lodged at the instance of the petitioner alleging
that his sister had been murdered and thereafter hanged so as to
obliterate the evidence of the offence. Admittedly, the petitioner
was not an eye-witness to the occurrence and had no direct
knowledge of the incident, having learnt about the same only after
it had already taken place.
2.1. The matter was thoroughly investigated and, thereafter, a
detailed police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. came to be
submitted. As per the investigation, the deceased Suman had
been married to accused Naresh Kumar about ten years prior to
the incident. Initially, she resided in the matrimonial home, but
after some time, a separate accommodation was arranged away
from the in-laws. The investigation further indicated that on the
day of the occurrence, there had been a routine domestic discord
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 12:12:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20569] (3 of 5) [CRLR-253/2025]
between the spouses involving verbal altercation and some
physical scuffle. It was alleged that the husband had beaten and
pushed the deceased before leaving for his work at village Badra.
The circumstances emerging proximate to the time of occurrence
suggested that thereafter the deceased was alone in the house
and apparently committed suicide by hanging herself.
2.2. The investigating agency concurrently found no material
against the other persons named in the FIR and exonerated them,
whereafter charge-sheet came to be filed only against the
husband of the deceased, namely Naresh Kumar.
2.3. After commencement of trial and examination of about
fourteen witnesses, the petitioner moved an application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of those persons who had
been left out during investigation. The learned trial Court, upon
due consideration of the material available on record, rejected the
said application, giving rise to the present revision petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order as well as the record of the case.
4. An undisputed fact which emerges is that even earlier an
application seeking identical relief had been moved by the
petitioner, which came to be rejected by the trial Court vide order
dated 01.07.2023. Thereafter, a second application of similar
nature was filed and was dismissed as not pressed on 24.02.2024.
Significantly, after rejection of the aforesaid two applications, no
fresh or substantive material surfaced on record so as to
strengthen the petitioner's claim.
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 12:12:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20569] (4 of 5) [CRLR-253/2025]
4.1. The persons now sought to be summoned include the
parents of the husband of the deceased, brother-in-law, sister-in-
law Smt. Radha (nani saas) Chandrawati, (maternal aunt) and
other relatives. Their names were very much available right from
the inception of the case. Yet, no protest petition was filed when
the charge-sheet came to be presented only against Naresh
Kumar with a clear finding of exoneration qua the aforesaid
persons, nor was any recourse taken under Section 193 Cr.P.C. at
the relevant stage.
4.2. Petitioner Monu and P.W.2 Sonu, who are real brothers of the
deceased, were examined during trial. Except for the statements
of these two interested witnesses, no independent or
corroborative material has surfaced indicating involvement of the
proposed accused persons. It is noteworthy that the earlier
applications seeking the same relief had also been considered
after recording of these witnesses. Thus, no new circumstance has
arisen thereafter warranting a different view.
4.3. By now, as many as eighteen witnesses stand examined and
the trial appears to be at the verge of conclusion. The
extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised
sparingly and only where strong and cogent evidence emerges
during trial indicating involvement of a person not facing trial.
Such satisfaction cannot rest upon mere suspicion or repetitive
assertions unsupported by fresh evidence.
4.4. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that no
material of such quality exists so as to justify summoning of
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 12:12:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20569] (5 of 5) [CRLR-253/2025]
additional accused persons to face trial along with Naresh Kumar.
The learned trial Court committed no illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error in rejecting the application under Section 319
Cr.P.C.
5. Consequently, the revision petition being devoid of merit
stands dismissed. The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
67-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 05/05/2026 at 12:12:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
