Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lovin Chauraya vs Tarlok Chand Kakkar & Ors on 10 July, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRR No.271 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No.271 of 2014
Date of Decision: 10.7.2014
Lovin Chauraya
...Petitioner
Versus
Tarlok Chand Kakkar & Ors.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr.Vivek K.Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.Raj Preet Singh Sidhu, AAG Punjab for respondent No.3.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The epitome of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, in the wake of complaint of petitioner-complainant Lovin Chauraya wife of late Piare Lal (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against main accused Pankaj Kakkar (husband), his parents Tarlok Chand Kakkar and Nirmala Rani (parents-in-law) of Heenu Arora, daughter of the complainant, vide FIR No.23 dated 25.2.2013 (Annexure P1), for the commission of an offence punishable under section 304-B read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station City Kharar, District S.A.S.Nagar (Mohali).
2. During the course of investigation of the case, accused Tarlok Chand Kakkar and Nirmala Rani (respondent Nos.1 and 2) (parents-in-law) Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.07.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.271 of 2014 2 were found innocent and were exonerated. However, the police has submitted the final police report (challan) (Annexure P4) against main accused Pankaj Kakkar (husband). During the pendency of the case, the application (Annexure P6) moved by the petitioner-complainant u/s 319 Cr.PC to summon them (parents-in-law) was dismissed by the trial Judge, by way of impugned order dated 20.11.2013.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-complainant preferred the present revision petition to challenge the impugned order, invoking the provisions of section 401 Cr.PC.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the trial Judge has committed a legal mistake to dismiss the application u/s 319 Cr.PC of the complainant, so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, lacks merit.
6. As is evident from the record that taking into consideration the vague allegations of cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry assigned to respondent Nos.1 and 2 (parents-in-law), the trial Court has dismissed the application u/s 319 Cr.PC filed by the complainant, by means of impugned order, which, in substance, is as under (Paras 5 &
6) :-
"5. A perusal of the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. has shown that the SHO of P.S. City Kharar has specifically stated that during the course of investigation nothing incriminating was found against Tirlok Chand and Nirmala Rani and as such they were found to be innocent by the Investigating Officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Michael Machado Vs. CBI 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 75 has observed that the basic requirement for invoking section 319 Cr.P.C. is that it should appear to the Court Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.07.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.271 of 2014 3 from the evidence collected during the trial or in the enquiry that some 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 other persons in the offence rather the court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected. However, in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. 1983(1) RCR (Crl) 73, the Hon'ble Apex Court had struck a note of caution to the effect that power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is really an extra ordinary power, which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the persons and try him against whom action has not been taken earlier. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Tejwant Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 2004(2) RCR (Crl.) 264 has taken the view that the court should not summon a person as additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. merely on doubt, if a prosecution witness names a person stating that he took active part in commission of offence u/s 306 IPC, then, this is vague allegation as the said PW has not stated that how the said person abetted or instigated to commit suicide. Thus the court is duty bound to see that this provision is not used as a handle by a witness to bring another person in the area of trial.
6. In the instant case also, PW1 Lovleen Chauraya has only bracketed Tirlochan Kakkar and Nirmala Devi by stating that they also used to harass and humiliate Heenu Arora on the pretext of bringing less dowry. This show that even this PW1 has not brought on record any additional material or evidence against the accused which was produced by her and other witnesses before the investigating agency. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hukam Chand Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) RCR(Crl.) 141 has observed that when the accused was found innocent by the investigating agency and the complainant in the course of trial only reiterated the allegations made in the complaint, then this cannot be considered as additional evidence and as such, the court cannot summon the accused on the basis of this statement alone, which was already considered by the police. The Hon'ble High Court had taken the view that there has to be some additional evidence which would indicate the complicity of the person sought to be summoned as accused. Mere statement of the complainant, ifso facto cannot form the basis of summoning a person u/s 319 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab & others 2000(3) RCR (Crl.) 695 has observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases and if it is not discouraged, it is likely to affect case of the prosecution, even against the real culprits."
7. Meaning thereby, the trial Judge has examined the matter in the Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.07.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.271 of 2014 4 right perspective and correctly refused to summon the respondents No.1 and 2 (parents-in-law) as additional accused to face the trial along with their son and main accused Pankaj Kakkar (husband). The learned counsel for petitioner-complainant did not point out any ground, muchless cogent, to interfere in the impugned order in this regard.
8. Not only that, there is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. The learned State counsel, on instructions from Investigating Officer, has submitted that the prosecution has already closed its evidence on 9.7.2014 and trial has already been concluded. In that eventuality, no ground, muchless cogent, is made out to summon the parents-in-law as additional accused. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled.
9. An identical question came to be decided by this Court in case Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab and others 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 585, wherein it was ruled that no person can legally be summoned as an additional accused to face the trial along with other co-accused under this section after the conclusion of the trial of main case. Therefore, the contrary contentions of learned counsel for petitioner-complainant "stricto sensu"
deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances as the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgment "mutatis mutandis"
is applicable to the facts of this case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
10. Moreover, the trial Court has recorded the cogent grounds to dismiss the application u/s 319 Cr.PC of petitioner, by virtue of impugned order. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction under Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.07.11 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.271 of 2014 5 Section 401 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such.
Sd/-
10.7.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
AS Judge
Arvind Kumar Sharma
2014.07.11 17:49
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh