Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sonia Dahiya @ Sonia vs The State Of Haryana on 30 July, 2021
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, Sanjiv Khanna
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).707 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 1065/2020)
SONIA DAHIYA @ SONIA APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 17.01.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRR No.139 of 2020, whereby it rejected the Revision Application filed by the appellant (Sonia Dahiya @ Sonia) assailing the order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonipat in Case No.SC/254/2017 dated 23.11.2019 to summon the appellant along with Karambir as accused in the offence registered as FIR No.35 dated 06.04.2017 with the Police Station GRP, Sonipat under Signature Not Verified Sections 498A, 323, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2021.08.02 18:40:53 IST Reason: Code.
It is the case of the appellant that she was married in the year 2007 and since then had been 2 staying along with her husband in a separate household. According to the appellant, she had no causal connection with the cause of death of her sister-in-law.
The trial Court whilst considering the application filed by the complainant-Rajender Singh under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., chose to name the appellant along with Karambir as perpetrators in the stated crime for the following reasons:
“10. Factually, in the present case, there are specific allegations of abetment against the proposed accused. However, there is a closure report in which, it is shown that the proposed accused were residing separately that the accused facing trial in the court. That means that the sons and the mother residing in one house, and father and daughter in the other house. Well to substantiate this prima-facie, the investigating agency should had brought some document in the form of residence proof on file. I have perused the file and as per the record, all accused and the proposed accused have been shown as the residents of Jatwara, Sonepat. So, if the accused facing the trial and the proposed accused are t he residents of same house, then in that situation, it is difficult to digest that on the same ground, some are challaned as accused where as others are left especially when there are specific allegations against the proposed accused.
11. Epilogue of the aforesaid discussion is that the request for summoning the proposed accused Karambir and Sonia, both resident of Jatwara, Sonipat is allowed. However, nothing observed above should be construed as any opinion on the merits of this case.3
Keeping in mind the seriousness of the offences, let the proposed accused Karambir and Sonia be summoned through non bailable warrants for 02.12.2019 to be executed through SHO of the concerned police station.” As regards the appellant, there is no specific mention about the material indicating her complicity in the commission of the alleged offence, including any overt act committed by her. Instead, the Court has generally observed that the appellant was resident of Village Jatwara, Sonipat. Assuming that the assertion that the appellant was residing with her husband in village Jatwara is correct, that by itself cannot be the basis to name the appellant as accused in the commission of the alleged offence. As a matter of fact, the police had filed closure report qua the appellant.
Be that as it may, as we are of the considered view that the observations made by the trial Court referred to above are vague and general and does not reveal any tangible material for naming the appellant. Hence, we set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge dated 23.11.2019 qua the appellant herein (Sonia 4 Dahiya @ Sonia), who has been named as accused in terms of that order. Instead, we restore the application filed by the complainant-Rajender Singh, s/o Daryao Singh Tomar, for considering the involvement of the appellant (Sonia Dahiya) afresh on its own merits in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
The parties to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge/trial Court on 17.08.2021, when the restored application qua appellant only can proceed afresh on its own merits on the basis of material before it without being influenced by any observations made in this order for deciding the matter in issue. Summoning order against Karambir is not a subject matter of the present appeal.
All contentions available to the parties are left open.
....................,J.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR) ....................,J.
(SANJIV KHANNA) NEW DELHI;
JULY 30, 2021.
5 6 ITEM NO.19 Court 4 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1065/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-01-2020 in CRR No. 139/2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) SONIA DAHIYA @ SONIA Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. Respondent(s) IA No. 23359/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 30-07-2021 This mattes was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv.
Mr. Jivesh Malik, Adv.
Ms. Beena, Adv.
Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Birendra Singh Choudhary, AAG Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Ms. Nandita Jha, Adv.
Mr. Y.P. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kawaljit Singh Bhatia, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NEETU KHAJURIA) (ANITA RANI AHUJA) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file.)