Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 2 April, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CRM-M No.32799 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
CRM-M No.32799 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 2.4.2013
Gurnam Kaur and another
......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.P.S.Khurana, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.J.S.Bhullar, A.A.G, Punjab
Mr.M.S.Dhami, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
SABINA, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of order dated 6.8.2011 (Annexure P-6), whereby the petitioners were summoned to face the trial as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 39 dated 1.5.2008 under Sections 406, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Hariana District Hoshiarpur and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves dismissal. CRM-M No.32799 of 2011 (O&M) 2
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant-respondent No.2 Rajvinder Kaur had got married to Narinder Singh. At the time of her marriage, her parents had given sufficient dowry. However, after one month of her marriage, her husband, his parents, Rano and Bikramjit Singh had started harassing and maltreating her. All the accused demanded more money from the complainant for purchasing a car. In February 2007, father of the complainant paid ` 2,00,000/- to Narinder Singh . For a few months, complainant was kept nicely in the matrimonial home but thereafter, again she was maltreated by the accused.
After investigation of the case, challan was presented against Narinder Singh, whereas, petitioners as well as their co- accused were kept in column No.2. During the pendency of the trial, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners and their co-accused as additional accused. Vide the impugned order dated 6.8.2011 (Annexure P-6), the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed qua the petitioners.
It has been held by the Apex Court in case Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 250 as under:-
"A reading of the plain language of Section 319(1) CrPC 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 CRM-M No.32799 of 2011 (O&M) 3 offence and deserves to be tried with other accused. There is nothing in the language of Section 319(1) CrPC 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."
"The process issued against the appellant under Section 319 CrPC cannot be quashed only on the ground that even though she was named in the complaint, the police did not file charge-sheet against her. A person who is named in the FIR or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 CrPC if from the evidence collected/produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused."
"The Magistrate had objectively considered the entire matter and judiciously exercised discretion under Section 319 CrPC for taking cognizance against the appellant. The issue of summons against the CRM-M No.32799 of 2011 (O&M) 4 appellant was not an abuse of the process of the court. While deciding the application filed under Section 319 CrPC, the Magistrate noticed the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the complaint that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had castigated her for insufficient dowry and subjected her to physical and mental harassment and that the sister-in-law had instigated the complainant's husband to inflict physical torture upon her, which were supported by the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC and by the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. In her complaint Respondent No.2 alleged that after one week of the marriage, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law (the appellant) told her that in the marriage, items like scooter, fridge, air conditioner, etc. were not given and the marriage party was not served well and that on the instigations of the mother-in-law and the appellant sister-in-law, the husband gave beating with the belan, and the appellant forcibly removed the rings."
"The complainant clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant and made a specific mention about this in the letters written to her parents and the Magistrate opined that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the appellant. The father and mother of respondent No.2 and four other persons, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 CrPC, clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in CRM-M No.32799 of 2011 (O&M) 5 harassing Respondent No.2 and instigating the complainant's husband to inflict torture upon her. Despite this, the police did not file charge-sheet against the appellant thinking that she had no occasion to make demand of dowry or harass Respondent No.2 because the appellant was living with her husband. Therefore, the trial of the appellant should proceed and should be decided expeditiously"
"The High Court broadly referred to the factual matrix of the case and held that the orders passed by the Magistrate and Sessions Judge did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC. The approach adopted by the High Court is in consonance with the settled law. Although at one stage, the Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the appellant and declared that in view of the bar of limitation contained in Section 468 CrPC, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance against the appellant, the said order was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal of the revision petition. In the post remand order passed by him, the Sessions Judge independently examined the entire record and held that prima facie case was made out for initiating proceedings against the appellant herein under Section 498-A IPC."
Section 319 reads as under:-
CRM-M No.32799 of 2011 (O&M) 6
"Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- 1) where, in the course of any 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 which he appears to have committed.
2) Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then
a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard.
b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."
Thus, as per the above provision, Court has ample power to summon any person as an additional accused if it appears during CRM-M No.32799 of 2011 (O&M) 7 trial that such person appears to have committed the offence.
Respondent No.2, while appearing in the witness box, during trial, categorically deposed that her relations with her in-law's family remained cordial for one month after her marriage but thereafter, petitioners as well as her husband harassed her and demanded ` 2,00,000/- from her to purchase a car. During the course of arguments, it has transpired that Narinder Singh was residing abroad and has now surrendered before the trial Court and has been ordered to be released on regular bail. Thus, in the absence of Narinder Singh, complainant was residing with the petitioners. Petitioners are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of complainant-respondent No.2 and from the statement of the complainant, it is evident that petitioners had also been harassing the complainant on account of insufficiency of dowry and were forcing her to bring ` 2,00,000/- in cash. Thus, there was sufficient material before the trial Court to summon the petitioners to face the trial as additional accused. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
SABINA) JUDGE April 02, 2013 anita