Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision: 25.1.2013 vs State Of Punjab And Another on 25 January, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Revision No. 1873 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
Crl. Revision No. 2016 of 2012 (O&M)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
1. Crl. Revision No. 1873 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 25.1.2013
Lakhvir Kaur ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
2. Crl. Revision No. 2016 of 2012 (O&M)
Jit Singh and another ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Ms. J.J.Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. G.B.S.Dhillon, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
SABINA, J.
Vide this order, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 16.5.2012 whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C' for short) for summoning the petitioners as additional accused to face the trial, was allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was no material on record to summon the petitioners to face the trial as additional accused. Earlier application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Trial Crl. Revision No. 1873 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Crl. Revision No. 2016 of 2012 (O&M) Court. Petitioner Lakhvir Kaur was residing in her matrimonial home after her marriage and had been falsely involved in this case. So far as petitioners Jit Singh and Tej Kaur are concerned, they had been falsely involved in the case being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased.
Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that both the petitions deserve dismissal.
Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"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 Crl. Revision No. 1873 of 2012 (O&M) -3- Crl. Revision No. 2016 of 2012 (O&M) 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, the Trial Court may summon any person to face the trial as an accused if there is sufficient material available against the said person during trial to proceed against him.
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) 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 Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. from which it can be inferred that a person who is named in the FIR or complaint Crl. Revision No. 1873 of 2012 (O&M) -4- Crl. Revision No. 2016 of 2012 (O&M) 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 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the appellant. The issue of summons against the appellant was not an abuse of the process of the court. While deciding the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate noticed the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the complaint Crl. Revision No. 1873 of 2012 (O&M) -5- Crl. Revision No. 2016 of 2012 (O&M) 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 Cr.P.C. and by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C.. 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 Cr.P.C., clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in harassing Respondent No.2 and instigating the complainant's husband to inflict torture upon her. Despite this, the police did Crl. Revision No. 1873 of 2012 (O&M) -6- Crl. Revision No. 2016 of 2012 (O&M) 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 Cr.P.C. 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 Cr.P.C., 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."
In the present case, Nazar Singh was married to Sandeep Kaur, daughter of respondent No. 2 on 12.10.1999. The couple were blessed with two children out of the said wedlock. The case of the complainant-respondent No.2, in brief, is that he had Crl. Revision No. 1873 of 2012 (O&M) -7- Crl. Revision No. 2016 of 2012 (O&M) given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter. However, Nazar Singh used to harass his daughter on account of insufficiency of dowry and demanded a car. Sandeep Kaur had told him that she had been given beatings by Nazar Singh along with his parents and sisters Lakhvir Kaur and Jasbir Kaur. Complainant had disclosed the said fact to the Sarpanch of their village. In this regard, Panchayat was convened. Nazar Singh, however, admitted his mistake and Sandeep Kaur was left in the matrimonial home. However, thereafter again she was harassed by the accused. A written compromise was also effected in the year 2002 between the parties. On 20.5.2006, at about 7.00 P.M., Nazar Singh rang up the complainant and raised the demand for a car and threatened that otherwise he would kill Sandeep Kaur. On 21.5.2006, complainant came to know that his daughter had suffered burn injures and was admitted in Dayanand Medical College Hospital.
Challan was presented against Nazar Singh. During the pendency of trial, after examination of the complainant, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners as additional accused. However, the said application was got dismissed as withdrawn by the prosecution as an application was moved by the prosecution seeking amendment of the charge. Thereafter, a fresh application was moved by the prosecution for summoning the petitioners as additional accused after the examination of the complainant. Since the earlier application had been dismissed as withdrawn as the prosecution had moved an application for amendment of the charge, the second application moved by the prosecution under Crl. Revision No. 1873 of 2012 (O&M) -8- Crl. Revision No. 2016 of 2012 (O&M) Section 319 Cr.P.C. after amendment of the charge, was maintainable. Earlier charge was framed against Nazar Singh with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) but later on the charge was amended and charge was framed against Nazar Singh with regard to commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. Complainant has specifically stated in his statement that his daughter had been given beatings by the petitioners along with Nazar Singh on account of demand of car/dowry. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court rightly ordered the summoning of the petitioners to face the trial as additional accused on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 25, 2013 Gurpreet