JUDGMENT Mr. Alok Singh, J.:- Present revision is filed by the complainant assailing the order dated 16.01.200 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby application moved by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon respondent No.1, as well as, his wife Sudesh and son Sonu to face trial as coaccused for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304- B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code was rejected. 2. For the unnatural death of Rutesh in her maternal home, accused – Rinku, husband of Rutesh, Rajinder son of Bhim Singh, father-in-law of Rutesh, Bala wife of Rajinder, mother-in-law of Rutesh deceased, are facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Dharmbir is maternal uncle of husband Rinku; while Sudesh is the wife of Dharmbir and Sonu is the son of Dharmbir. It is admitted fact, as observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, that Dharmbir, maternal uncle and his son Sonu are staying separately at Village Bodli, which is 40 kms. From village Padha; whereas Sudesh is living at Sahabad, which is 90 kms. away from village Padha and maternal home of the deceased is village Padha. 3. Undisputedly, respondent No.1 herein was having separate residence, mess from the deceased and her husband and in-laws. The floating allegation against Dharmbir and his wife and son is that whenever they visited to village Padha, they also used to harass the deceased Rutesh for bring less dowry. 4. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ram Pal Singh & others versus State of U.P. and another, reported in [2009(2) Law Herald (SC) 983] : 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 131, in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 has observed as under:- “15. The ingredients of Section 319 are unambiguous and indicate that where in the course of 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 he has committed. 16. 16. All that is required by the Court for invoking its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be satisfied that from the evidence adduced before it, a person against whom no charge had been framed, but whose complicity appears to be clear, should be tried together with the accused. It is also clear that the discretion is left to the Court to take a decision on the matter.” 5. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Suman versus State of Rajasthan and another, reported in [2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 3902] : 2010(1) Criminal Court Cases, 269 (S.C.), in paragraph no.11 has held as under:- “11. Section 319 Cr.P.C. applies to all the Courts including the Sessions Court. It empowers the Court to add any person, not being the accused before it, but against whom there appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with other accused. If such person is not attending the Court, he can be arrested or summoned. If he is attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, he can be detained by such Court for the purpose of inquiry into, or trial of the offence which he appears to have committed. Sub-section (4) lays down that where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and witnesses are reheard. A reading of the plain language of sub-section (1) of Section 319 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a person not already an accused in a case can be proceeded against if in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence it appears from the evidence that such person has also committed any offence and deserves to be tried with other accused. There is nothing in the language of this sub-section from which it can be inferred that a person who is named in the FIR or complaint but against whom charge-sheet is not filed by the police, cannot be proceeded against even though in the course of any inquiry into or trial of any offence the Court finds that such person has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the other accused.” 6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sarabjit Singh and Anr. Vs. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sarabjit Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2009(16) SCC 46, in paragraph no.17 has observed as under:- 17……. An order under Section 319 of the Code, therefore, should not be passed only because the first informant or one of the witnesses seeks to implicate other person(s). Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by the court so as to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions. Mere ipse dixit would not serve the purpose. Such an evidence must be convincing one at least for the purpose of exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. For the aforementioned purpose, the courts are required to apply stringent tests; one of the tests being whether evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned.” 7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Michael Machado & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in 2000(3) SCC 262 in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12 has observed as under:- “11. The basic requirement for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well as tried along with the already arraigned accused. 12. But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words “the Court may proceed against such person”. The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons.” 8. This Court in the matter of Shivraj Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, Crl. Revision No. 1551 of 2010, decided on 17.02.2011 having placed reliance on the various judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court including the judgments cited herein above has held as under:- “From the perusal of the judgments of the Apex Court (supra), it can safely be held that power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised only when from the evidence available on the record involvement of the accused is found by the Court and evidence so led before the Court if stands unrebutted would result in the conviction of the accused sought to be summoned. However, mere suspicion about the involvement of the accused to be summoned from the evidence available on record would not justify the exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code. Power under Section 319 of the Code is the discretionary power and should be used very sparingly with great care and caution.” 9. In view of the dictums of the Hon’ble Apex Court, power under Section 319 of the Code must be invoked with great caution and very sparingly when Court is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence on the record and if such evidence stand unrebutted would lead to the conviction and further Court is satisfied that joint trial seems to be just and proper. Power under Section 319 of the Code should not be exercised when only vague and ambiguous evidence is brought before the Court. While exercising power under Section 319 of the Code Court must bear in mind the tendency of the people to implicate all the relatives in the matrimonial dispute or in the dowry death cases. 10. Power under Section 319 of the Code should not be exercised when only vague and ambiguous evidence is brought before the Court. While exercising power under Section 319 of the Code Court must bear in mind the tendency of the people to implicate all the relatives in the matrimonial dispute or in the dowry death cases. 10. I am satisfied that evidence on record does not satisfy the tests as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Evidence does not inspire confidence. Maternal uncle, his wife and son who are residing far far away from the matrimonial home of the deceased seem to be not involved in the present case. Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application. Judicial discretion exercised by the Trial Court should not lightly be interfered with. 11. In the opinion of this Court, order impugned does not require any interference. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------