Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ram Singh vs State And Ors on 31 July, 2020
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 667/2018
Ram Singh S/o Sh Banwari Lal, B/c Jat R/o Alayala Tehsil
Bhadra, Dist Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan
2. Om Prakash S/o Sh Hansraj
3. Natwar Lal S/o Om Prakash
4. Kavita W/o Sh Om Prakash
5. Pratap Singh S/o Hansraj
6. Sumitra W/o Sh Pratap Singh, All Are Resident Of
Bojhhla, Tehsil Bhadra Dist Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, P.P
Mr. Mahipal Singh Deora on behalf of
Mr. Sunil Joshi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order Order Reserved on : 24/07/2020 Date of pronouncement: 31/07/2020 Instant revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Distt. Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 07/2017 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C for taking cognizance against the respondents No.2 to 6 has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was registered by the petitioner complainant against the accused persons stating therein (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (2 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] that marriage of petitioner's daughter was solemnized with Bhanwar lal. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given to the accused but still they harassed his daughter and demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lacs and a car. It was stated that when the illegal demands were not met, then they killed her daughter and cremated without information to the petitioner and his family. The police registered a case under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC and started investigation. Three different investigating officers investigated the matter thoroughly and thereafter, filed a challan against the deceased's husband Bhanwar lal for offence under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. The investigation in respect of respondents accused was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, investigation was done by Additional Superintendent of Police who thoroughly investigated the matter and submitted FR in respect of respondents accused. The charges of the case were framed against the husband Bhanwar lal. The prosecution examined witnesses PW/1 to PW/8. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner for taking cognizance against respondents No. 2 to 6 in this case.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of FIR, the name of respondents No. 2 to 6 were mentioned by the complainant in the FIR and all the accused persons harassed the deceased for demand of dowry. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C as well as in the court statement, name of respondents were mentioned. But the trial court without assigning any cogent reason, rejected the application filed by the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.05.2018 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (3 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] Rajesh & Ors Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2019 Cri.L.J 2968 and Saeeda Khatoon Arshi Vs. State of UP & Anr reported in 2020 (1) WLC (SC) Cri. 549.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondents argued that three investigating officers thoroughly investigated the matter and it has come on record that no case for harassment and demand of dowry is made out against the respondents OmPrakash father-in-law, Natwar lal brother-in-
law, Kavita mother-in-law, Pratap Singh uncle and Sumitra, aunt.
The fact which emerged from the investigation was that the deceased used to talk to some other boy on mobile due to which the husband and wife used to quarrel with each other. On the date of incident also, the husband and wife quarreled and suddenly, the wife became unconscious. She was immediately taken to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Bhadra but she expired by the time they reached the hospital. Prima facie, the cause of death has been reported to be heart attack. Dr. Vinod Punia who examined the deceased at the hospital has stated that no injury was found on body and there were no signs of poisoning. It is further argued that the information with regard to death was immediately given to parents of deceased and it is in their presence that the cremation was done. It is argued that the application filed by the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the trial court by way of passing a detailed order, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order.
I have considered the rival contention of the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on record.
From the material on record, it is evident that in the FIR as well as in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C and Court (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (4 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] statement, the name of respondents finds mention but no specific role has been assigned to the respondents but the complainant has levelled omnibus allegation against the respondents. In this case, three investigating officers investigated the matter and after examining each and every aspect of the matter came to the conclusion that the deceased used to talk to some other boy due to which there were heated conversations between the husband and wife. On the date of incident also, a quarrel took place and suddenly, the wife became unconscious. The doctor who examined the deceased has categorically mentioned that no injury was found on the body of deceased nor there was any sign of poisoning. So far as respondents no. 2 to 6 are concerned, all these persons had reached the village of the accused after getting information and with the consent of the family members of the deceased, no postmortem was conducted and in the presence of parents of the deceased, the cremation was conducted. The police also collected the call details of these persons and as per call details also, these persons were present when the cremation took place. Thus, the police found that the complainant had implicated even remote relatives of the deceased's husband and did not find the allegation with regard to demand of dowry and harassment proved against the respondents No. 2 to 6 which is evident from the challan filed by the police. The detailed conclusion arrived by the police after thorough investigation is reproduced hereunder :-
"pw¡fd izdj.k ds eqLrfxl i{k us vfHk;ksx nsjh ls ntZ djkus dk dkj.k mUgs llqjky okyks }kjk lwfpr fd;s fcuk gh nkg laLdkj dj fn;s tkus o vkjksih i{k }kjk lqeu dh ekjihV dj gR;k djus dk vkjksi yxk;k gS vr% eqLrfxl i{k ds mDr vkjksiks ds laca/k esa fuEukafdr rF; ik;s x;s gS & (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (5 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] 1- ;g fd eqLrfxl Jh jkeflag dh yM+dh e`rdk lqeu dh 'kknh fnukad 05-12-2014 dks vkjksih Hkaoj yky iq= vkSeizdk'k tkV fuoklh cks>yk ds lkFk gqbZ FkhA ;g fj'rk vkSeizdk'k lgkj.k fuoklh vyk;yk us e/;LFk gksdj djok;k FkkA 'kknh ds ckn lqeu mQZ lesLrk vius llqjky vkrh tkrh jgh A 'kknh ds dqN efgus ckr e`rdk lqeu ds lkfk mls ifr vkjksih Hkaoj yky }kjk ngst dh ekax o vU; yM+ds ls ekSckbZy ij okrkZ djus bR;kfn dks ysdj vucu jgus yx xbZA fnukad 27-09-2016 dks e`rdk lqeu o vkjksih Hkaoj yky ds chp vkil esa dgk lquh gksdj fookn gksus ij e`rdk ds vpkud csgks'k gksus ij mldh lafnX/k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vius llqjky edku eqyfte xzke cks>yk esa e`R;q gks xbZA bl izdkj lqeu vius ifr ls gh fookn gksus o mldks lkl&llqj] nsoj }kjk ngst ds fy, rax ijs'kku djus dh ckr gksuh ugha ikbZ xbZA 2- ;g fd izdj.k esa eqLrfxl i{k }kjk yxk;k vkjksi fd e`rdk lqeu us nkg laLdkj ds le; mudks lwpuk ugha nh vkSj uk gh mUgs cqyk;k x;kA bl laca/k esa vuqla/kku ls ik;k x;k fd vkjksih i{k ds xokg ckywjke] jkeLo:i] Hkwiflag] cyoarflag] egsUnz mQZ esgjpUn] vejflag] eq[kjke] dj.khflag] fugkyflag] egkohjflag] nsohyky us vius dFkuks esa vafdr djok;k gS fd e`rdk lqeu ds ihgj i{k ls lqeu dk lxk pkpk jkepUnz o vkSeizdk'k lgkj.k] cyohj] vejflag lgkj.k] eksgflag o y{e.k xkaocks>yk] vkSeizdk'k flgkx ds ?kj vk;s Fks vkSj bUgksus e`rdk lqeu dk nkg laLdkj fd;k x;kA mijksDr xokgu ds dFkuks dh iqf"V e`rdk ds llqjky vkus okys ihgj i{k ds O;fDr;ksa dh dkWy fMVSy ls gksrh gS] D;ksfd jkepUnz lgkj.k tks e`rdk lqeu dk lxk pkpk gS mldh fnukad 27-09-2016 dks 12%30%33 ls 15%55%39 rd xzke vyk;yk o blds ckn 18%05%40 ls 19%00%50 rd xzke Mwaxjkuk o 19%27%32 ij xzke vuwi'kgj esa yksds'ku vkbZ gSA blh izdkj cyohj lgkj.k tks eqLrfxl jkeflag dk fj'rs esa nknk yxrk gS mldh yksds'ku 04%37 ih-,e- ij xzke vyk;yk] 06%53 ih-,e- ij xzke jklykuk] 09%28 ih-,e- ls xzke vyk;yk esa vkbZ gSA vejflag lgkj.k tks eqLrfxl dk iM+kSlh gS mldh yksds'ku 04%48 ih-,e- ls 06%51 ih-,e- rd jklykuk esa vkbZ gSA blh izdkj vkSeizdk'k lgkj.k ¼fcpksyk½] eksgjflag o y{e.k MªkbZoj dh 06%00 ih-,e- ls 07%00 ih-,e ds chp yksds'ku xkao cks>yk dh vkbZ gSA izkIr tkudkjh ds vuqlkj xkao cks>yk esa ekSckbZy Vkoj yxk gqvk ugha gS] bl dkj.k xkao esa ekStwn gksus ij xkao Mwaxjkuk] eylhlj] jklykuk esa yxs Vkojks dh dkWy fMVSy esa yksds'ku nf'kZr gksrh gSA vr% ekSckbZy dkWy fMVSy ds vk/kkj ij eqLrfxl i{k ds mijksDr O;fDr jkepUnz lgkj.k] vkSeizdk'k lgkj.k] cyohj] vejflag] ekSgjflag o y{e.k ?kVuk ds fnu xkao cks>yk esa vkus izekf.kr gksrs gSA vr% mDr rF; ls Lor% gh eqLrfxl (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (6 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] i{k dk e`rdk lqeu ds llqjky vkdj mlds nkg laLdkj esa lfEefyr gksuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA 3- ;g fd Jh cyohj lgkj.k iq= Hktuyky tks e`rdk ds ihgj ds xkao vyk;yk ls xkao cks>yk esa nkg laLdkj esa lfEefyr gqvk Fkk us iwoZ esa vius dFkuks esa c;ku fd;k gS fd eqLrfxl jkeflag ifjokj esa mldk iksrk yxrk gSA vkSeizdk'k lgkj.k ¼tks vukt dk O;kikj djrk gS½ og cks>yk ls xkM+h ysdj vk;k tks jkeflag ds NksVs HkkbZ jkepUnz oxSjk dks ysus ds fy, vk;k Fkk rc jkeflag us dgk fd eSa esjh yM+dh dh yk'k ns[k ugha ldrk g¡w] blds ckn vkSeizdk'k lgkj.k ds dgus ij xkM+h esa jkeflag ds dgus ij xkao ls eSa] jkeflag dk lxk HkkbZ jkepUnz] iM+kSlh vejflag] jkeflag dk fj'rsnkj eksgjflag csjM+ fuoklh <+hydh] MªkbZoj fyNe.k ge N% vkneh fnu esa djhc 2&3 cts vkSeizdk'k flgkx ds ?kj ij x;s] ogka ij xkao cks>yk ds 60&70 vkneh [kM+s o cSBs Fks] lqeu dh yk'k dk bUrtkj dj jgs FksA gekjs tkus ds 15&20 feuV ckn ,d xkM+h esa lqeu dh yk'k vkSeizdk'k flgkx ds ?kj ij vkbZ] rc eSus o eksgjflag csjM+ oxSjk us vkSeizdk'k ds vkaxu esa tkdj lqeu dh yk'k ns[kh] dksbZ pksV bR;kfn fn[kkbZ ugha nh rc lqeu ds lxs pkpk jkepUnz oxSjk ds dgus ij rlYyh dj nkg laLdkj djokus dh ckr dg nh vkfn crk;kA vr% mDr xokg ds dFkuks ls Li"V gS fd eqLrfxl i{k us e`rdk dh yk'k ns[kdj vkSj mlds dksbZ pksV vkfn ugha ns[kdj gh mldk ng laLdkj djus dh lgefr nh Fkh] ftl ij mldk nkg laLdkj fd;k tkuk izdV gksrk gSA vr% eqLrfxl i{k ds xkoa cks>yk esa mifLFkr jgrs ghs e`rdk dk nkg laLdkj fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA p¡wfd mDr xokg us ckn esa vius dFkuks esa c;ku fd;k fd eSa vkSeizdk'k flgkx ds ?kj ugha x;k ,oa uk gh eSus lqeu ds nkg laLdkj ds fy, dgkA bl izdkj mDr xokg }kjk ckn esa fn;s x;s dFku lafnX/k izdV gksrs gS] D;ksfd mDr xokg ds ekSckbZy uEcj 8290228737 dh dkWy fMVSy ds vuqlkj oDr 04%37 ih-,e- ls 06%53 ih-,e- rd xokg cks>yk esa gksuk ik;k x;k gSA vr% mDr xokg dk xkao cks>yk esa u vkuk o nkg laLdkj esa lfEefyr u gksuk c;ku djuk vlR; ik;k x;k gSA 4- ;g fd vkjksih i{k ds edku ds lkeus fuokl djus okys xokg Hkwiflag iq= t;dj.k fuoklh cks>yk us iwoZ esa lh-vks- uksgj dks fn;s vius dFkuks esa c;ku fd;k gS fd xkao vyk;yk ls vk;s vknfe;ksa esa ,d <+hydh dk yM+dk o ,d vksjvkneh nksuks vkSe ds ?kj vkaxu esa tkdj yk'k ns[kdj vk;s Fks] fQj nkg laLdkj ds fy, lqeu dh yk'k 'ke'kku ?kkV ys x;sA vyk;yk okys lHkh vkneh vkSeizdk'k ds ? kj ij 'kkar cSBs jgsA nkg laLdkj gksus ds ckn vkSeizdk'k lgkj.k oxSjk lHkh N% tus ek'kZy ysdj pys x;sA bl izdkj mDr xokg Hkwiflag ds dFkuks ls Hkh eqLrfxl i{k dk e`rdk dh ekSr ij xkao cks>yk vkuk o nkg laLdkj esa 'kkfey gksuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA pw¡fd mDr xokg Hkwiflg us ckn esa Jhefr fueZyk fo'uksbZ vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (7 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] guqekux<+ dks vuqla/kku ds nkSjku crk;k fd lqeu ds nkg laLdkj esa eSus ihgj i{k ds fdlh O;fDr dks ugha ns[kk FkkA mDr xokg }kjk ckn esa crk;s x;s rF; vlR; izdV gksrs gS] D;ksfd mDr xokg Hkwiflag us rFkkdfFkr vkjksih vkSeizdk'k vkfn }kjk mls ekjihV djus dk vfHk;ksx la[;k 14@12 iqfyl Fkkuk Hkknjk esa vkSeizdk'k oxSjk ds f[kykQ ntZ djok;k tkuk ik;k x;k gSA lkFk gh vfHk;ksx la[;k 207@2014 iqfyl Fkkuk Hkknjk tks eqLrfxl cyoku flag us vkjksihx.k xokg Hkwiflag vkfn ds fo:) ntZ djok;k Fkk ftlesa QnZ uD'kk ekSdk esa xokg rFkkdfFkr vkjksih vkSeizdk'k iq= galjke cuk FkkA bl izdkj rFkkdfFkr vkjksih ds fo:) eqdnek ntZ djokus o mlds fo:) ntZ eqdnesa esa rFkkdfFkr vkjksih }kjk xokg cuus ds dkj.k Hkwiflag dh rFkkdfFkr vkjksih vkSeizdk'k vkfn ls jaft'k gksuh izdV gksrh gSA blh jaft'k ds dkj.k rFkkdfFkr vkjksih vkSeizdk'k iwoZ esa ljiap jgus ds dkj.k fojks/kh ikVhZ ds izHkko esa vkdj xokg Hkwiflag ckn esa fojks/kkHkk"kh c;ku nsuk izdV gksrk gSA vr% xokg Hkwiflag ds iwoZ ds dFku eqLrfxl i{k dks xkao cks>yk esa vkus ds rF; dks izekf.kr djrs gSA 5- ;g fd rFkkdfFkr vkjksih vkSeizdk'k flgkx us viuh iwNrkN esa crk;k fd e`rdk lqeu dh e`R;q gksus ij mlus vkSeizdk'k lgkj.k ¼fcpkSyk½ dks bldh lwpuk nh FkhA bl rF; dh iqf"V ekSckbZy dkWy fMVsy ls gksrh gS fd vkSeizdk'k flgkx us vius ekSckbZy uEcj 9772211605 ls vkSeizdk'k lgkj.k ds ekSckbZy uEcj 982103793 ij fnukad 27-09-2016 ds oDr 02%22%08 ij 39 lSd.M okrkZ dh gSA bl rF; ls rFkkdfFkr vkjksih vkSeizdk'k flgkx }kjk vkSeizdk'k lgkj.k ¼fcpksfy;k½ dks e`rdk lqeu dh e`R;q dh lwpuk Qksu djds nh tkuh izekf.kr gksrh gSA 6- ;g fd blh fnu fnukad 27-09-2016 dks eqLrfxl Jh jkeflag dh vius lkys esokflag ls dbZckj yEch okrZ gqbZ gSA dkWy fMVSy ds vuqlkj jkeflag ds ekSckbZy uEcj 9828589445 ls esokflag ds eksckbZy uEcj 9416143161 ij oDr 03%38%09 ij 370 lSd.M] oDr 03%46%10 ij 204 lSd.M] oDr 03%59%09 ij 73 lSd.M dh xbZ gSA blh izdkj eqLrfxl ds HkkbZ jkepUnz ls Hkh esokflag dh okrkZ gqbZ gS] dkWy fMVSy ds vuqlkj oDr 03%55%55 ij 160 lSd.M] oDr 06%05%57 ij 99 lSd.M okrkZ dh xbZ gSA bl izdkj e`rdk lqeu dh e`R;q ds laca/k esa eqLrfxl o mlds ifjokj okyks rFkk mlds lkys oxSjk dks lwpuk feyus ij gh budh vkil esa okrkZ dh tkuh ikbZ xbZ gSA blds vykok eqLrfxl ds lxs HkkbZ jkepUnz o ifjokj ds vU; lnL; cyohj lgkj.k] vejflag lgkj.k] vkSeizdk'k lgkj.k] eksgjflag] y{e.k dh yksds'ku oDr 06%00 ih-,e- ls 07%00 ih-,e- ds e/; xkao cks>yk esa vkbZ gSA blls Li"V gS fd eqLrfxl jkeflag dks lqeu dh e`R;q dk irk pyus ij vius xkao ls HkkbZ o vU; yksxks dks xkao cks>yk Hkstk Fkk vkSj bu yksxks us e`rdk lqeu dh e`R;q ds laca/k esa rlYyh dj nkg laLdkj djus dh gka djus ij gh e`rdk dk nkg laLdkj fd;k (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (8 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] tkuk ik;k x;k gSA vr% mijksDr vk;s rF;ks ls e`rdk lqeu dh e`R;q gks tkus ij mlds llqjky okyks }kjk mlh le; bldh lwpuk ihgj i{k dks nsuh vkSj ihgj i{k }kjk xkao cks>yk vkdj e`rdk dh yk'k ns[kuh o fQj nkg laLdkj dh lgefr nsus ij gh mldk nkg laLdkj fd;k tkuk ik;k tkrk gSA 7- ;g fd eqLrfxl i{k }kjk e`rdk lqeu dh mlds llqjky okyks } kjk gR;k dj lk{; dks Nqikus dk vkjksi yxk;k gSA bl laca/k esa ik;k fd e`rdk lqeu dh rch;r [kjkc gksus ij gh mls thfor voLFkk esa mlds llqjky okyks }kjk thou T;ksfr gksLihVy esa fn[kkus ds fy, ys tkuk ik;k x;k gSA pw¡fd vkjksih i{k ds eu esa dksbZ vijk/k dh fLFkfr gksrh rks og mldh yk'k dks gksLihVy ys tkus dh ctk; Nqikus dk iz;Ru djrsA vr% vkjksih i{k ds dCtk esa tc e`rdk vdsyh Fkh rc os mls mlh le; vLirky ysdj x;sA bl rF; ls muds }kjk ekjihV dh dgkuh Lor% gh izekf.kr gksuh izdV ugha gksrh gSA blds vyok muds }kjk gksLihVy igq¡pdj MkWDVj fouksn iwfu;ka dks fn[kk;k x;k] ftl MkWDVj fouksn iwfu;ka us vius dFkuks esa c;ku fd;k gS fd fnukad 27-09-2016 dks fnu esa djhc 02%30 cts gksLihVy ds bejtsalh esa ,d vkSjr lesLrk mQZ lqeu ifRu Hkaoj yky dks ysdj vk;sFks] eSaus mDr vkSjr dks ns[kk rks og e`r voLFkk esa FkhA e`rdk ds lkFk okyks us crk;k dh blh FkksM+h nsj igys jkLrs esa lkals py jgh Fkh rc eSus ml vkSjr dk lhihvkj ¼Nkrh dks iEi djuk½ djus dh dksf'k'k dh ysfdu mlds ckn Hkh lqeu ds 'kjhj esa dksbZ gypy ugha FkhA fQj bZlhth djus ij Hkh bZlhth esa QysV ykbZu Fkh] blfy, eSus mls e`r ?kksf"kr dj fn;kA izFke n`"V;k ns[kus ij lesLrk mQZ lqeu ds 'kjhj ij pksV ds dksbZ fu'kku ugha Fks] xys esa Qans dk fu'kku Hkh ugha Fkk vkSj lkekU; :i ls ik;s tkus okys tgj ds y{k.k Hkh fn[kkbZ ugha ns jgs FksA Li"V :i ls e`R;q dk dkj.k ugha crk;k tk ldrk ysfdu izFke n`"Vr;k ns[kus ij e`rdk dh e`R;q g`n; dh fcekjh ls gksus dh lEHkkouk gS] vkfn rF; vius dFkuks esa crk;s gSA vr% e`rdk lqeu dh yk'k dks ns[kus okys MkWDVj fouksn iwfu;ka ds dFkuks o e`rdk ds ihgj i{k xkao vyk;yk ls cks>yk vkus o yk[k ns[kus ds rF; vkSj nkg laLdkj dh lgefr nsus ds rF;ks ls e`rdk lqeu ds 'kjhj ij fdlh izdkj ds pksV vkfn ds fu'kku ugha gksus dh iqf"V gksrh gSA vr% mDr rF;ks ls e`rdk lqeu dks mlds llqjky okyks }kjk fdlh izdkj ls Hkh ejihV dj mldh e`R;q dkfjr djuk o lk{;ks dks Nqikuk ugha ik;k x;k gSA vr% mDr vk;s rF;ks ls e`rdk dh e`R;q vdLekr gh fdlh vU; fcekjh tks MkWDVj fouksn iwfu;ka ds dFkukuqlkj fd mldh e`R;q g`n; jksx ls gksus dh lEHkkouk gS] lgh izdV gksrh gSA 8- ;g fd e`rdk lqeu o mlds ifr vkjksih Hkaoj yky ds chp lqeu }kjk mlds xkao ds fdlh vU; yM+ds ds lkFk ekSckbZy ij ckr djus dks ysdj Hkh vucu gksuh izdV gksrh gS] ftldh iqf"V e`rdk lqeu ds ihgj i{k ds vfrfjDr lHkh vU; Lora= xokgu us vius (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (9 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] dFkuks esa dh gSA bl izdkj e`rdk lqeu o mlds ifr ds chp gh eq[; :i ls vkilh vfo'okl dks ysdj vucu gksuh ikbZ tkrh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vU; rFkkdfFkr vkjksih llqj vkSeizdk'k] dkdk llqj izrkiflag] nsoj uVoj yky] lkl dfork] dkdh lkl lqfe=k }kjk e`rdk lqeu dks nku ngst ds fy, rax ijs'kku ugha djuk izdV gksrk gSA Lora= xokgu us Hkh vius dFkuks esa mDr rF; vius dFkuks esa c;ku fd;s gSA blds vykok fdlh efgyk dks mlds dkdk llqj o dkdh lkl }kjk ngst ds fy, rax ijs'kku fd;k tk;s] LokHkkfod gh lR; izdV ugha gksrk gS] tcfd eqLrfxl i{k e`rdkds dkdk llqj izrkiflag o dkdh lkl lqfe=k ij Hkh lqeu dks Hkh ngst ds fy, rax ijs'kku djus ds vkjksi yxk;s gSA bl izdkj mDr rF; ls e`rdk lqeu dks mlds ifr Hkaoj yky ds vykok llqjky i{k ds vU; fdlh Hkh O;fDr }kjk rax ijs'kku fd;k tkuk ugha ik;k x;k gSA 9- ;g fd xkao cks>yk ls xkao vyk;yk dh nwjh yxHkx 20 fdyksehVj gS vkSj dkWy fMVSy ds fo'ys"k.k ls eqLrfxl i{k dk xkao cks>yk esa ?kVuk gksrh ghs vkuk ik;k x;k gSA eqLrfxl i{k ds xkao cks>yk vkus ij vkSj e`rdk lqeu dh yk'k ns[kus ij mlds ftLe ij dksbZ pksVs vkfn gksrh ;k e`rdk lqeu dh e`R;q ds laca/k esa dksbZ lansg gksrk rks vo'; gh mlh fnu xkao cks>yk ls okfil vkus ds ckn eqdnek ntZ djokrs] ijUrq eqLrfxl i{k }kjk vfHk;ksx ?kVuk ds pkj fnu ckn ntZ djokuk ik;k x;k gS tks vo'; gh eqLrfxl i{k }kjk fdlh vU; ds cgdkos esa vkdj c<+k p<+kdj ntZ djok;k tkuk izdV gksrk gSA bl izdkj mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh Jh Hkaoj yky fllksfn;k vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd vijk/k ,oa lrdZrk jsat dk;kZy; chdkusj }kjk vkjksih e`rdk ds ifr Hkaoj yky iq= vkseizdk'k ds fo:) tqeZ /kkjk 498,] 304ch Hkk-n-la- izekf.kr ik;k x;k gSA izdj.k esa rFkkdfFkr vkjksih vkSeizdk'k] izrkiflag] uVoj yky] Jhefr dfork] Jhefr lqfe=k ?kVuk esa lafyIr gksus ugha ik;s x;s gSA rQrh'k ls iwoZ vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh Jh HkwisUnz dqekj vkj- ih-,l- o`Rrkf/kdkjh uksgj }kjk fd;s x;s vuqla/kku dh iqf"V gksuk ikbZ xbZ gSA vr% vkjksih Hkaoj yky iq= vkSeizdk'k tkfr tkV fuoklh cks>yk ds f[kykQ iwoZ vkjksi i= la[;k 14 fnukad 28-01-2017 dk iw.kZ vkjksi i= fnukad 30-12-2017 Jheku ds U;k;ky; esa izLrqr gSA"
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary power of the trial court, therefore, the discretion exercised by the trial court cannot be lightly interfered with unless it is shown that the order refusing to implead the persons as accused has been made mechanically or it is arbitrary or perverse. The trial court, while (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (10 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] refusing to take cognizance against the respondents, has taken into account every aspect of the matter and the entire material placed before it and more particularly the chance of conviction of the respondents who have been sought to be impleaded as accused.
The constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 1 Crl.L.R (SC) 310 while discussing the powers of the Court concurred with the view taken in the case of Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2014) 3 SCC 306 concluded as under:
"110. We accordingly sum up our conclusions as follows:
Question Nos. 1 & III Q.1 What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised?
AND Q. III Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial? A. In Dharam Pal's case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Code of Criminal Procedure and the Sessions Judge need not wait till 'evidence' under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure becomes available for summoning an additional accused.
Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (11 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 Code of Criminal Procedure; and under Section 398 Code of Criminal Procedure are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure Materials coming before the Court in course of such enquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the chargesheet. In view of the above position the word 'evidence' in Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial.
uestion No. II Q. II Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure could only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination- in-chief of the witness concerned?
A. Considering the fact that under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) Code of Criminal Procedure the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination.
Question No. IV Q. IV What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to arraign an accused? Whether the power (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (12 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] under Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted? A. Though under Section 319(4)(b) Code of Criminal Procedure the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure would be the same as for framing a charge. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial-therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different.
Question No. V Q. V Does the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or who have been discharged?
A. A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been chargesheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, in so far as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of Sections 300 and 398 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh."
(Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM)(13 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. v. The State Of Gujarat & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No(s).
1349/2018 decided on 13.11.2018, ruled that in exercising the power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the courts cannot mechanically summon a person not named in the FIR or in the charge sheet on a mere reason that a witness named that person.
Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors reported in AIR 2019 SC 3477 has held as under :-
"9.The standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an Accused person Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing a charge against the Accused person. The power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly. As held in Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. : (2008) 14 SCC 51, "the power of summoning an additional Accused Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly. The key words in Section are "it appears from the evidence"."any person"."has committed any offence". It is not, therefore, that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of such person or that there is some material against that person, the discretion Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure would be used by the court."
10. As held by the Constitution Bench in para (105) in Hardeep Singh, the power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary and is to be exercised sparingly which reads as under:
(Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM)(14 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018]
105. Power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.
106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure In Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the Accused has committed any offence" is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the Accused". The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted". There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to form any opinion as to the guilt of the Accused.
(Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM)(15 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018]
11. The above view was followed in Brijendra Singh as under:
13. In order to answer the question, some of the principles enunciated in Hardeep Singh case : (2014) 3 SCC 92 may be recapitulated: .. However, since it is a discretionary power given to the court Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. The degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge-sheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity.
12. In the light of the above principles, considering the present case, having regard to the contradictory statements of the witnesses and other circumstances, in our view, the trial court and the High Court rightly held that Respondent No. 2 cannot be summoned as an Accused. The FIR in Case Crime No. 328A/2013 was registered on 06.09.2013 at 18.15 hours. The name of second Respondent is no doubt mentioned in the FIR and overt act is attributed to him. It is clear from the record that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses namely Rajesh Kumar, Nizamuddin, Nand Kishore, Tribhuwan Singh, Bintu Rai and Nageshwar Kumar and other seven witnesses who have stated that Respondent No. 2 was not present at the place of (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (16 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] occurrence at the time of the incident. The Investigating Officer has also recorded the statement of one Shiv Kumar Gupta and Sandeep Gupta who are working in the same office in which Respondent No. 2 was employed who had stated that Respondent No. 2 was in the office at the time of incident. Based on the statements recorded from the witnesses, the Investigating Officer found that the second Respondent was posted on the post of Junior Engineer in the Bridge Construction Unit of Bridge Corporation, Lucknow and he usually resided there and on 06.09.2013, he was present at his workplace and discharging his official duties. Based on the materials collected during the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the finding that on the date and time of incident, Subhash Chandra Shukla was not present at the place of occurrence. Accordingly, the name of Subhash Chandra Shukla was dropped when the first charge sheet was filed on 19.09.2014. The supplementary charge sheet was filed against Rahul Shukla on 15.10.2014. Though the name of second Respondent was mentioned in the FIR, during investigation, it was thus found that the second Respondent was not present in the place of incident and on the basis of the findings of the Investigating Officer, he was not charge sheeted. Be it noted that the Appellant-complainant has not filed any protest petition then and there. During investigation, when it was found that the Accused was not present at the place of incident, the courts below were right in refusing to summon Respondent No. 2 as an Accused."
So far as the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the same are not applicable to the present case as those judgments were based on different set of facts. As has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments, it is a (Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM) (17 of 17) [CRLR-667/2018] discretionary power given to the court Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, no case is made out for interference in the impugned order dated 17.05.2018. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 83-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 04/08/2020 at 08:31:46 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)