Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalu Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:15994) on 25 March, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:15994]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4150/2019
1. Kalu Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 30 Years, By
Caste Rajput, R/o Dudwa, Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore
(Raj.).
2. Smt. Chail Kanwar W/o Shri Kalu Singh, Aged About 27
Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Dudwa, Tehsil Sayla, District
Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through P.p.
2. Smt. Sagar Kanwar W/o Praveen Singh, By Caste Rajput,
R/o Dudwa, At Present Bithan, Tehsil Jaswantpura,
District Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None Present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NK Gurjar, GA-cum-AAG with
Mr. Y.S. Charan
Mr. VS Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with
Mr. Ravindra
Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 25/03/2025 REPORTABLE
1. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the private respondent - Shri Suresh Kumbhat and Shri Sheetal Kumbhat and the learned Public Prosecutor as well as gone through the order under challenge passed by the Court of first instance and the Court of Revision and also gone through the niceties of the matter.
3. Bereft of elaborate details, succinctly stated the facts of the case are that a prosecution was launched at the instance of (Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:24:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15994] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-4150/2019] respondent No.2 for subjecting her to cruelty and maltreatment during her matrimony. Though in the FIR, she levelled allegations of causing injuries and forcibly making her to swallow contaminated/poisonous substances and the role of the petitioners were also mentioned, however, after conducting thorough investigation, due reasons were given by the Agency and only the husband of the respondent No.2 was charge-sheeted for committing offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 325 of IPC. It is notable that the conclusion of the Investigating Agency was never made to challenge by the complainant party or by the State of Rajasthan. It is also noteworthy that no application under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the respondents. After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned trial Court proceeded to hear the parties on the question of charge. Vide order dated 25.11.2017, the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 498-A, 323 and 325 of IPC. After commencement of the trial, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and at that juncture, an application came to be moved on behalf of the respondent No.2 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for arraigning the petitioners also as an accused party in light of the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Judge allowed the application. The another application moved by her under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed though no challenge has been made ever by any of the parties.
4. Aggrieved by the order booking the petitioners by taking resort to Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners made a challenge by moving a criminal revision petition, however, the same has (Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:24:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15994] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-4150/2019] been dismissed and as such both the orders are under assail before this Court.
5. I have minutely gone through the niceties of the matter, the statement of the victim recorded during trial, the police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C and the statements of neighbours of the matrimonial home viz. Lakma Ram and Nimba Ram and others so also gone through the injury report. This Court has noticed serious incongruence and major contradiction in the statement of the respondent No.2. When her statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. during the course of the investigation, she narrated the incident of administering her poison in the following manner:-
"On 19.02.2017 between 1.00 P.M. - 2.00 P.M., her husband Praveen Singh forcibly poured a bottle of poison into her mouth and he also beat her by fist and kicks."
6. When she was examined in the trial, she by making material improvement, deposed these following lines:-
"On 19.02.2017, she was beaten up by her in-laws and her husband Praveen Singh gave her a lathi blow. Father-in- law - Ram Singh, mother-in-law - Chail Kanwar and the petitioners caught hold of her then told that her husband also holding her. Her husband made her to swallow poison and father-in-law, mother-in-law and the petitioners kept holding her."
7. A glimpse over the two statements suggesting this Court that sufficient material is not there to book the petitioners as accused and there is no such material, for which, they should be forced to face the rigor of trial. Putting any person and compelling him to attend the Court proceedings certainly infringes his fundamental (Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:24:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15994] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-4150/2019] right. The issuance of process for joining the trial should not be taken lightly. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. reported in 1998 SC 128 expounded that due care should have been taken before issuance of process against any person since calling him to attend the Court proceedings regularly certainly restrains his fundamental rights which is otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The law is no more res integra as held in the case of Hardeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2014 3 SCC 92 that a left over accused can be impleaded during trial provided sufficient material is brought on record to array him also as an accused. In some of the cases, the sufficiency of the material has been taken to say if the allegations are not rebutted, the same may lead to conviction. In a recent judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 289, a further enunciation of law has been made in this regard. I am of the view that the opinion of the Investigating Officer was never made to challenge which is in an unequivocal and unambiguous term has exonerated the petitioners. No challenge has been made to the report of the investigation. The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence and proceeded in the matter only against accused-husband, however, no challenge was made by the respondent for booking the petitioners also by taking resort to Section 190 read with Section 204 of Cr.P.C. After examining eight witnesses in the trial, the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has been moved which is allowed by the learned trial Judge in a mechanical manner. Simply mentioning name or levelling (Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:24:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15994] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-4150/2019] vague allegations would not be sufficient to book any person under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. I am of the firm opinion that the material brought on record must be scrutinized to some extent so as to make a firm opinion whether sufficient grounds are there or not to array a new person for joining the trial. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. provides for impleadment of additional accused so that they may be tried together with the principal accused. The FIR in this case was lodged in the year 2017. The trial had progressed to a great extent. The material witnesses have been examined. At this juncture, holding the trial, booking a new person and then ordering de novo trial, in my firm opinion would be nothing but doing so would be a travesty of justice. I am of the firm opinion that the learned trial Judge has committed an error of law in allowing the application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge was expected to examine the legality, correctness so also the propriety of the order passed by the trial Court, but he utterly failed to do so rather casually concurred his opinion with the learned Magistrate. The legal aspect has not been considered wisely by both the Courts below, thus, the instant misc. petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 25.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalore in Criminal Regular Case No.60/2017 and the order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.45/2017 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners are exonerated from the charges. The (Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:24:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15994] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-4150/2019] learned trial Court to proceed against the principal accused. No further order is required to pass.
9. Stay application is disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J 9-divya/-
(Downloaded on 11/04/2025 at 10:24:44 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)