Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pushpa Devi vs Kusum And Others --Respondents on 4 March, 2014
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No. 715 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 04.03.2014.
Pushpa Devi --Petitioner
Versus
Kusum and others --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present:- Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J CRM No.7268 of 2014 In the light of the averments made in the application duly supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of 17 days delay that has occurred in filing the accompanying revision petition.
Prayer is allowed.
Delay of 17 days stands condoned.
Application is disposed of.
CRR No.715 of 2014 The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.11.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide which the order dated 10.5.2013 passed by the J.M.I.C, Kaithal summoning the respondents herein for offence under section 406, 498-A, 506 I.P.C, has been set aside.
Counsel would submit that the complainant in this case i.e. Pushpa Devi, present petitioner was married to Pawan i.e. brother of the respondents. Based upon the complaint lodged by the petitioner, F.I.R Lucky 2014.03.13 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRR No. 715 of 2014 (O&M) -2- dated 16.3.2012 under sections 406, 498-A, 506 I.P.C had been registered in Police Station Kalayat against husband Pawan, father-in-law Ishwar, mother-in-law Ballo and both the respondents i.e. Nanads. However, after investigation the challan was submitted against the husband and his parents, whereas the respondents herein i.e. Nanads were put in column no.2 having been found to be innocent. It is further submitted that after framing of the charges, the complainant/petitioner, Pushpa Devi was examined as PW-1 and she has reiterated the allegations against all the accused including her Nanads i.e. the present respondents.
Counsel would argue that based upon the serious allegations levelled against respondents no.1 and 2 while appearing in the court as PW- 1, the learned J.M.I.C had found it to be a fit case to exercise the discretionary powers under section 319 Cr.P.C and as such, application moved by the prosecution had been allowed and both the respondents had been ordered to be summoned as additional accused. Counsel has argued that the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in terms of impugned order dated 13.11.2013 has set aside the summoning order passed by the J.M.I.C and which is perverse and against the evidence on record. Counsel argues that the finding contrary to the record has been recorded stating that there are no specific allegations against the respondents and which would in turn show that there has been a non-application of judicious mind. Towards such assertion counsel would advert to the statement of PW-1 i.e. complainant/present petitioner placed on record at Annexure P-2 and would submit that allegation of specific entrustment of dowry articles to both the sisters-in-law (Nanads) had been made. That apart, counsel submits that there were allegations in the nature of harassment and taunting against both CRR No. 715 of 2014 (O&M) -3- the sisters-in-law. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2009 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal), 908, wherein a summoning order in relation to the married sisters of the husband in a complaint lodged by the wife had been upheld.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the pleadings on record, I am of the considered view that no ground for interference is made out.
In the first instance, it may be noticed that the J.M.I.C, Kaithal while passing the order dated 10.5.2013 while summoning the sisters-in-law as additional accused had been alive to the settled principle governing the exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C and had observed in the order itself that a person can be added as accused only when there is reasonable prospect of the case against such accused ending in conviction but thereafter proceeded to allow the application under section 319 Cr.P.C in the light of the following observations:-
"12. In the present case as per the contents of complaint Ex.PB dated 27.02.2012, the specific allegations were made against the accused facing trial and against Sudesh d/o Ishwar and Kusum d/o Iswar in regard to occurrence. The complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 fully deposed that the contents of complaint and again deposed about the involvement of Sudesh d/o Ishwar and Kusum d/o Ishwar in the cruelty against her and entrustment of dowry articles to Sudesh d/o Ishwar and Kusum d/o Ishwar, which shows that there is strong evidence on file to proceed against the persons named in the application under section 319 Cr.P.C."CRR No. 715 of 2014 (O&M) -4-
The entire discussion while summoning the sisters-in-law as additional accused is bereft of any reasoning of the nature of evidence brought on record which would be construed as much stronger evidence to show more than a prima facie case and mere probability of the complicity of the sisters-in-law. The order has been passed in a routine and mechanical fashion.
In case of Sarabjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (3) R.C.R (Criminal) 388, it had been held that a person should not be summoned to face trial as additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C only if a prima facie case is made out and such person should be summoned only when the court finds that evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of such person sought to be summoned.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal while allowing the revision petition against the summoning order dated 10.5.2013 would reveal that both the sisters-in-law are married and are staying in their respective matrimonial homes and away from the other co-accused i.e. husband as also his parents. It has further been noticed in the impugned order that as regards the certain dowry articles the entrustment of which had been alleged to the respondents herein i.e. Sisters-in-law, such articles stand recovered at the instance of the husband of the complainant. Still further, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal in the impugned order has formed an opinion that there is no piece of evidence and no specific allegations levelled against the respondents i.e. Sisters-in-law which would in any eventuality lead to their conviction as regards the offences alleged.
CRR No. 715 of 2014 (O&M) -5-
The impugned order is based on cogent and valid reasoning. The judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner would be clearly distinguishable on facts. In the facts of that case the summoning order of a married sister of the husband of the complainant wife had been upheld but by taking notice of the specific allegations against the sister-in-law and which were to the following effect:-
(i) The accused/sister-in-law along with her mother had forcibly taken the complainant to a lady doctor and got implanted Cooper Tee so that she may not give birth to any child. (ii) On a particular day the husband had given beatings to the complainant and the accused/sister-in-
law had snatched her hair and forcibly removed the earrings. (iii) Complainant in her letters to her parents had specifically mentioned about the demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment against the sister-in- law and (iv) The sister-in-law had told the complainant that at the time of marriage items in the nature of scooter, fridge, A.C etc. had not been given and the marriage party had not been served well.
As opposed to such specific allegations as noticed in the case of Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), the allegations made by the complainant/petitioner herein against the sisters-in-law have been found to be vague in nature and the court below while passing the impugned order has found such allegations to be of a nature towards an attempt to rope in the entire family of the accused husband.
In the totality of the circumstances, no ground for interference is made out. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE March 04, 2014.
lucky