Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Kaur & Others vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 8 January, 2014
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Criminal Misc.No.M-31971 of 2012(O&M) {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.M-31971 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: 08th January, 2014
Surjit Kaur & Others
.. Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr.
.. Respondents
Criminal Misc.No.M-21047 of 2012(O&M)
Sukhraj Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr.
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.B.S.Jaswal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.R.S.Randhawa, Addl.AG, Punjab.
Mr.Sutikshan Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
***
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
1. This order shall dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-31971 of 2012 (Surjit Kaur & Others vs. State of Punjab & Anr) and Criminal Misc. No.M-21047 of 2012 (Sukhraj Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Anr.), since the challenge in both the petitions is to the order dated 13.07.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala, whereby the petitioners were summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC. The challenge has also been made to the order dated 10.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, whereby Sharma Seema 2014.01.17 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc.No.M-31971 of 2012(O&M) {2} the revision petition filed by the petitioners of the two criminal miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset pointed out that during the course of investigation conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the petitioners and Charan Singh were declared innocent and as such, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was filed for the prosecution of Dharminder Singh (husband) only. He further contends that while passing the summoning order, the learned summoning Court had failed to consider the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police whereby the petitioners were found innocent. However the report of Ms. Nirmala Devi, Inspector of Police, was considered and the petitioners were ordered to be summoned and as such, the impugned order passed by the learned summoning court and the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are liable to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by Sh.Sutikshan Sharma, Advocate, representing the complainant has very fairly conceded that the petitioners were found innocent by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the said report has not been considered by the summoning court as well as the Revisional Court and as such, the matter can be remitted to the learned trial court/summoning court for decision afresh while taking into consideration the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record. Sharma Seema 2014.01.17 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Criminal Misc.No.M-31971 of 2012(O&M) {3}
5. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of complainant/respondent No.2, Mandeep Kaur, was solemnized with Dharminder Singh (non-applicant) on 28.11.2003. Out of the said marriage, a male child was born on 23.09.2004. The husband and the wife could not pull on well, therefore, the multifarious litigations started between them. The husband, i.e Dharminder Singh, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same was accepted by the learned District Judge and a decree of divorce was granted in his favour. Respondent No.2/complainant moved an application for registration of the case for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC, against her husband Dharminder Singh, Charan Singh (father-in-law/non-applicant), Raj Mohinder Singh (brother-in-law "Jeth"), Surjit Kaur (mother-in-law), and Sukhraj Kaur and Gurvinder Kaur (married sisters-in-laws "Nanads"). During investigation, an application was presented by the petitioners for investigation by a senior officer and the matter was entrusted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baba Bakala. He came to the conclusion that except Dharminder Singh, no other person was liable for prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC. The charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) was presented for prosecution of Dharminder Singh only. The charges for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC, were framed against Dharminder Singh and thereafter, Mandeep Kaur respondent No.2/complainant appeared as PW-1 and reiterated the version of her complaint. On an application moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the petitioners and Charan Singh were summoned to face trial with the principal accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and Sharma Seema 2014.01.17 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc.No.M-31971 of 2012(O&M) {4} 498-A, IPC. A few of the petitioners approached this Court by way of a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. however, this Court vide order dated 10.08.2010 passed in Criminal Misc.No.M-22449 of 2010 relegated those petitioners to approach the Court of Session by way of a criminal revision petition. The petitioners had filed the revision petition and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 10.05.2012 (Annexure P-19).
6. The core question before this Court is that as to why the learned summoning court had not considered the report prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police whereby the petitioners were exonerated. While allowing the application presented by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned court below considered the report of Ms.Nirmala Devi, Inspector of Police, Incharge, Women Cell, but failed to consider the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police whereby the prejudice of the petitioners is writ at large. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the learned court below would have considered the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Baba Bakala, in that eventuality, the fate of the case might have been different.
7. Keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case, the present petition is allowed. Resultantly, the order dated 13.07.2010 passed by the learned trial court/summoning court as well as the order dated 10.05.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Amritsar, are set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned trial court for re-consideration of the application presented by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for summoning of the petitioners as additional Sharma Seema 2014.01.17 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc.No.M-31971 of 2012(O&M) {5} accused.
8. Before parting with the above order, it is apposite to mention that summoning of a person is a serious matter. A person cannot be summoned as an additional accused in a routine manner. The reference can be made to Arun Jha and Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 301 and M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, 1997(4) RCR(Criminal) 761 SC.
January 08, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi)
seema Judge
Sharma Seema
2014.01.17 17:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh