Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 March, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Crl.Misc.No.M-8867 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-8867 of 2012
Date of decision : 26.3.2012
Gurjit Singh .......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ....Respondent
....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK **** Present : Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the petitioner.
...
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 7.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,Ludhiana, vide which application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face trial for the offence under Sections 306/34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no evidence available against the petitioner and the impugned order suffers from patent illegality. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has been summoned only on the basis of the statement suffered by the wife of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner concluded by submitting that the impugned order was liable to be set aside, being unstainable in law.
Crl.Misc.No.M-8867 of 2012 2
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Mohan Vs. State Try. Dy. Superintendent of Police, 2011(2) RCR (Crl.) 272.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with his able assistance have gone through the record of the case.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is without any substance and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Bare reading of the order dated 07.11.2011 shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana has passed the impugned order after due application of mind. One of the specific allegations against the petitioner levelled by the deceased himself is that the petitioner visited the house of the deceased and got his signatures on the blank papers forcibly on the pretext of entering into a compromise with the brother and uncle of the deceased. It has also been alleged by the deceased that it caused pain to the deceased, as nobody was redressing his grievance and thereafter he set himself on fire.
The learned trial court has concluded by saying that the evidence on record against the petitioner, prima facie, proves that Balwant Singh, uncle of the deceased alongwith Gurjeet Singh, Ex-Sarpanch (petitioner) have also abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased, as they used to consume liquor alongwith accused Charanjit Singh, who is facing trial. It is further observed that they had been playing deck/stereo at high pitch and threatened the deceased, which resulted into depression and Crl.Misc.No.M-8867 of 2012 3 tension for the deceased, which ultimately forced him to commit suicide.
So far as the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, there is no dispute about the law laid down therein. However, it is to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted the scope of abetment, which would be relevant at the time of conviction. It is the settled proposition of law that at the time of summoning a person as an additional accused, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., only prima facie case is to be seen and the probative value of the evidence would be appreciated at the time of trial. Thus, the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable, being distinguishable on facts.
The inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be exercised only for the objects specified under the Section itself. In the present case, none of the objects specified in Section 482 Cr.P.C. favours the petitioner, which may warrant the exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by this court. The view taken by this court finds support from the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 908. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15 of the judgement read as under :-
" In view of the settled legal position as above, we hold that a person who is named in the first information report 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, Crl.Misc.No.M-8867 of 2012 4 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. As a corollary, we hold that 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.
16. Before proceeding further, we deem it proper to observe that in some of the decisions, this Court has emphasized that discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously and not as a matter of routine - Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), Anil Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another (2006) 13 SCC 421 and Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and another 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 762: 2007 (2) RAJ 534: (2007) 14 SCC 544. In Michael Machado's case, the Court was called upon to consider whether the Metropolitan Magistrate was justified in summoning the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at the penultimate stage of the trial. The first appellant in that case was the Chief Manager of Malad Branch of Corporation Bank at Mumbai and the second appellant was Chief Manager of Wadala Branch (Mumbai). On a complaint lodged by Deputy Manager of the bank with the allegation that the bank has been Crl.Misc.No.M-8867 of 2012 5 defrauded by certain persons resulting in financial loss to the tune of Rs.50 lacs, a first information report was registered by the police. After investigation two charge sheets were filed before Metropolitan Magistrate against 4 persons. After perusing the charge sheets, the Metropolitan Magistrate felt that the CBI, which had conducted the investigation, was shielding the appellants. He, therefore, sought explanation from the CBI. After considering the explanation, the Metropolitan Magistrate opined that the Investigating Officer had committed an offence under Section 219 IPC and issued notice to him. Simultaneously, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate decided to implead the appellants as additional accused. That order was challenged by the concerned Investigating Officer. The High Court quashed the order but left it open to the Metropolitan Magistrate to take necessary action under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at an appropriate stage. Thereafter, the trial commenced against the four accused and as many as 49 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Till that stage, learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not consider it necessary to implead the appellants as accused. However, when statements of the remaining three witnesses were recorded, he passed a brief order summoning the appellants. The High Court upheld the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. This Court quashed the summoning order by observing that though evidence of last 3 witnesses may create some suspicion against the Crl.Misc.No.M-8867 of 2012 6 appellants but that was not sufficient for convicting the appellants for the offence of conspiracy. The Court also felt that there was no warrant for wasting the massive evidence collected by the trial Court against the 4 accused. In the course of judgment, the Court made the following observation:
"The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other 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 another person in the offence. In other words, the court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused.
But even then, what is conferred on the court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words "the court may proceed against such person". The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence Crl.Misc.No.M-8867 of 2012 7 connecting that other person also with the offence. 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. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed against other persons."
In view of the above, the present petition is wholly misconceived and without any substance. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. No manifest illegality has been pointed out in the impugned order. Thus, the present petition is without any merit and it must fail.
Accordingly, the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed.
26.3.2012 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) GS JUDGE