Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab on 10 December, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRR No.753 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No.753 of 2011
Date of decision: 10.12.2012
Satnam Singh etc.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab
****
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,(for short,'the Cr.P.C) is for quashing of summoning order dated 05.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur court in case of F.I.R No. 66 dated 20.5.2010 under Sections 363/366-A/376 IPC.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that complainant Jagir Singh lodged F.I.R No. 66 dated 20.5.2010 under sections 363/366- A/376 IPC alleging that the petitioners enticed away his daughter, Raj Rani with an intention to marry her. He alleged that Satnam Singh alias Satta son of Swaran Singh, resident of Basti Shehrian, Police Station Fatehgarh Panjtoor, District Moga had developed illicit relation with Raj Rani. They were meeting with each other CRR No.753 of 2011 2 secretly. On 5.5.2010 at about 2 am when the complainant woke up for urinating found his daughter Raj Rani missing. He and his family tried to trace her, but failed. Later on he came to know that Satnam Singh alias Satta in connivance with his mother Surjit Kaur and his cousin Sonu son of Surinder Singh resident of Basti Shehrian took away his daughter Raj Rani on the pretext of marriage.
3. In the present case, during investigation, the petitioners were found innocent and they were kept in Column No.2 of the report under section 173 Cr.P.C . Later on complainant Jagir Singh and prosecutrix Raj Rani were examined as PW-1 and PW-2. In their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C , they have specifically named the present petitioners, Satnam Singh alias Satta, Surjit Kaur and Sonu. PW-2 Raj Rani stated that on 5.5.2010 at about 12.00 mid night Satnam Singh along with his mother Surjit Kaur, cousin of Satnam Singh namely Sonu son of Surinder Singh, all residents of Basti Sehrian reached her home and took her to Moga and they locked her there and she remained there for 20 days. She further stated that Satnam Singh and Sonu used to open the lock of the room when they had to provide food and to commit rape upon her against her wishes and consent.
4. The Learned trial court allowed the application under section 319 Cr.P.C and the present petitioners Satnam Singh alias Satta,Sonu and Surjit Kaur were summoned to face trial along with CRR No.753 of 2011 3 the other accused under sections 363/366-A/376 IPC as the PW1 Jagir Singh and PW2 Raj Rani in their statements in court have specifically named Satnam Singh alias Satta,Surjit Kaur and Sonu.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners states that prosecutrix neither in her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C nor under Section 164 Cr.P.C has stated that petitioner No.1 and 3 have also committed rape upon her. He further states that,for the first time, prosecutrix has stated before the court that petitioner no.1 and 3 have committed rape upon her. Learned Counsel further states that at the time of recording her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C, prosecutrix has stated that she has married with Deepak Sharma and does not want to go to her parents . Learned Counsel has further stated that she has changed her statement during trial under the pressure of her parents.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully.
7. The present FIR was lodged by Jagir Singh, the father of the prosecutrix. She was seventeen years and nine months of age at the time of occurrence. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 6.7.2010, the prosecutrix has stated as under:-
"On 8.5.2010, I left my house at 2.30 a.m. as I was not happy at my house. At first I alone had gone and I spent my night near the market. In the morning at 8.30 a.m., I boarded a bus from CRR No.753 of 2011 4 Fatehgarh to Dharamkot from outside the school. Then I remained at Gurudwara Singh Sabha Dharamkot for about 2 ½ hours. Then from Dharamkot, I boarded bus for Sidhwan Bet to Ludhiana. I spent about one hour in the market of Sidhwan and then I reached at Ludhiana. My condition was bad and I was not well. I remained at Ludhiana Bus stand and then one person namely Kala met me there at Ludhiana Bus Stand. I narrated my story to him and asked him to get job for me. He arranged a rented room for me. For two days, I stayed in the room. I met to Sunny Sharma and he told me that his parents are not alive and he is not having any relations with his relatives. I told him my story. I told him my story that earlier I left my house on the asking of my cousin sister and then I came back and felt sorry. My uncle was giving beatings to me. My family members got registered FIR against Satnam Singh. Satnam Singh was not at fault. I and Sunny Sharma solemnized marriage. Marriage was solemnized with our consent. I am not having any relation apart from my husband. I want reside with my husband. I do not want to reside with my parents. We both are happy in our life. Sunny Sharma is not having any fault."
8. However, during trial, the prosecutrix has made improvement in her statement and narrated the names of the petitioners.
9. In Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2004 SC CRR No.753 of 2011 5 4298, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"In Michael Machado & Anr., v Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., [2000] 3 SCC 262, construing the words "the court may proceed against such person" in Section 319 Cr.P.C., this Court held that the power is discretionary and should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice and that the court should not turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that other person also with the offence. This Court further held that 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. The court, while examining an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has also to bear in mind that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed against other persons. In nut shell, it means that for exercise of discretion under Section 318 Cr.P.C, all relevant factors, including the one noticed above, have to be kept in view and an order is not required to be made mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence had come on record implicating the person sought to be added as an accused."
10. In the present case, during investigation, the petitioners were found innocent and they were kept in column No.2 of the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C.. The prosecutrix herself in her statement before the JMIC, dated 6.7.2010, has specifically stated that the CRR No.753 of 2011 6 petitioners are not fault at all. During her statement before the Magistrate, nobody was present in the room except the Magistrate and the prosecutrix. Therefore, there is no question of any threat. The prosecutrix was seventeen years and nine months of age at the time of occurrence.
11. In view of the above, discussion the present revision petition is allowed and the order dated 5.2.2011, whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the complainant was allowed and petitioners have been summoned as additional accused, is set aside and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is, hereby dismissed.
10.12.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE