Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 12 March, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.R.No.325 of 2012(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.R.No.325 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: March 12, 2012
Satpal Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.7106 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.R.No.325 of 2012 The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 7.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, vide which present petitioner was ordered to be summoned as an accused to face trial for commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 302 IPC alongwith accused already facing trial by allowing the application filed on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat.
Briefly stated, the present case was registered on the statement of Sher Singh, complainant, father of deceased. He was having three Crl.R.No.325 of 2012(O&M) -2- daughters, namely, Rakhi, Anju (deceased), Manju and a son, namely, Bhupidner. His two daughters, namely, Anju and Manju were married to co- accused Dharmender and Jitender on 24.3.2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. He had given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage beyond his capacity and, however, just after few days of marriage, accused Dharmender and his other family members started beating and taunting Anju for bringing inadequate dowry. There was demand of a car. On being informed about the demand by Anju to her parents, they approached her husband Dharmender and his father, i.e., present petitioner-accused-Satpal Singh. However, they refused to listen to him. As both the daughters of the complainant remained under stress, one of the daughters, namely, Manju, was got admitted by him in the hostel of S.D.College, Panipat, and, however, Anju put an end to her life by hanging due to harassment and torture caused to her by her husband and other family members, including the present petitioner.
After investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against co-accused Dharmender, Jitender and Neelam, however, the present petitioner-accused was kept in column No.2 of the report. After trial commenced, charge was framed against co-accused for offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B and alternatively under Section 302 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution examined Smt.Ram Ratti, mother of deceased Anju as PW1, who specifically deposed that present petitioner-accused alongwith his other co-accused raised demand and was actively involved in causing acts of harassment to her daughter for bringing inadequate dowry and due to Crl.R.No.325 of 2012(O&M) -3- the said harassment, her daughter ended her life. She also deposed that her husband could not appear as he was suffering from cancer and getting treatment from PGIMS Rohtak since March 2009 and the treatment has also affected his memory. Statement of PW-2 Manju was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation and she corroborated the statement given before the Court. After recording statement of Ram Ratti, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution to summon Satpal Singh, the present petitioner as an additional accused to face trial alongwith other co-accused.
After considering the relevant law on the point including the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75 (SC), learned trial Court came to the conclusion that it had reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already recorded that present appellant has committed an offence and that he could as well be tried alongwith the persons already arraigned as an accused.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the stage of summoning of additional evidence under Section 319 Cr.P.C., prima facie case is not to be seen and rather satisfaction of trial Court is to be required that not only prima facie case exists rather evidence is more than that. He has also placed reliance upon Sarabjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another 2009(8) JT 73, and Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah Etc. v. State of Gujarat and others 2011(3) RCR (Criminal) 852.
It is pertinent to reproduce Section 319 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-
Crl.R.No.325 of 2012(O&M) -4-
"S. 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.--(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of' the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-
(a) The proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard:
(b) Subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."
The ambit and scope of the power of the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has come up for consideration before Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time in various decisions. In Sarojben Aswinkumar Shah Etc.'s case (supra), on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, Hon'ble Apex Court after making reliance upon earlier judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, observed as under:-
"16. The legal position that can be culled out from Crl.R.No.325 of 2012(O&M) -5- the material provisions of Section 319 of the Code and the decided cases of this Court is this :
(i) The Court can exercise the power conferred on it under Section 319 of the Code suo motu or on an application by someone.
(ii) The power conferred under Section 319(1) applies to all courts including the Sessions Court.
(iii) The phrase "any person not being the accused"
occurring in Section 319 does not exclude from its operation an accused who has been released by the police under Section 169 of the Code and has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet. In other words, the said expression covers any person who is not being tried already by the court and would include person or persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the court.
(iv) The power to proceed against any person, not
being the accused before the court, must be
exercised only where there appears during inquiry or trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence as an accused and not otherwise. The word `evidence' in Section 319 contemplates the evidence of witnesses given in court in the inquiry or trial. The court cannot add persons as accused on the basis of materials available in the charge- sheet or the case diary but must be based on the evidence adduced before it. In other words, the court must be satisfied that a case for addition of persons as accused, not being the accused before it, has been made out on the additional evidence let in before it.
(v) The power conferred upon the court is although discretionary but is not to be exercised in a routine manner. In a sense, it is an extraordinary power Crl.R.No.325 of 2012(O&M) -6- which should be used very sparingly and only if evidence has come on which sufficiently establishes that the other person has committed an offence. A mere doubt about involvement of the other person on the basis of the let in before the court is not enough. The Court must also be satisfied that circumstances justify and warrant that other person be tried with the already arraigned accused.
(vi) The court while exercising its power under Section 319 of Code must keep in view full conspectus of the case the stage at which the trial has proceeded already the quantum of evidence collected till then.
(vii) Regard must also be had by the court to the constraints imposed in Section 319 (4) that proceedings in respect of newly - added persons shall be commenced afresh from the beginning of the trial. (viii) The court must, therefore, appropriately consider the above aspects and then exercise its judicial discretion." Earlier judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Sarabjit Singh and another's case (supra), on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is also to the same effect.
It is also relevant to mention here judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Suman v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2010 AIR (SC) 518, wherein as well, while placing reliance upon all the previous judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was observed as under:-
"15. 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, can be proceeded against Crl.R.No.325 of 2012(O&M) -7- under Section 319 Cr.P.C., if 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."
Hence, in view of this legal proposition, this Court is to see as to whether impugned order passed by learned trial Court is justified.
So far as Sarojben Aswinkumar Shah Etc.'s case (supra) is concerned, it was a case for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the complaint was filed against some of the partners of the partnership firm and, however, on the basis of partnership deed, the other partners were also ordered to be summoned without taking into consideration the fact regarding criminal liability of a partner in the partnership firm as in light of the provisions contained in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, there has to be evidence that at the time, the offence was committed, the partner was incharge and was responsible to the Firm for the conduct of the business of the firm. Hence, in this background, the order passed by the High Court was set aside and the case was remanded back for afresh hearing and for reconsideration by the High Court in accordance with law.
However, facts of the present case are similar to the facts in Suman's case (supra). The said case was also for offence under Sections 498-A IPC and sister-in-law of the complainant was ordered to be Crl.R.No.325 of 2012(O&M) -8- summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C, and the order was held to be valid and the plea that issue of summons against the appellant amounts to abuse of process of the Court was not accepted. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:-
"17. In the light of the above, we shall now consider whether the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC or the satisfaction recorded by him for issuing process against the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is vitiated by any legal infirmity and the learned Sessions Judge and High Court committed an error by refusing to quash the order passed by him. In the complaint filed by her, respondent No.2 alleged that after one week of the marriage, her mother-in- law - Rukmani Devi and nanad - Suman (the appellant herein) told her that in the marriage, items like scooter, fridge, air- conditioner etc. have not been given and the marriage party was not served well; that mother-in-law - Rukmani Devi and nanad - Suman forcibly took the complainant to a lady doctor and got implanted Copper-T so that she may not give birth to any child; that nanad - Suman started instigating the husband of the complainant either on phone or otherwise and thereupon, he not only used to assault, but also humiliate and torture the complainant; that on 7.4.2002 the husband gave beating with the belan and nanad - Suman snatched her hair and forcibly removed the rings. In her statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 reiterated all the allegations. The father and mother of respondent No.2 and 4 other persons, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in harassing respondent No.2 and instigating her husband to inflict torture upon her. Despite this, the police Crl.R.No.325 of 2012(O&M) -9- did not file charge-sheet against the appellant thinking that she had no occasion to make demand dowry or harass respondent No.2 because she was living with her husband, Mahendra Pal at Bikaner. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 again made specific allegations against the appellant. While deciding the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate noticed the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the complaint that her mother-in-law, Smt. Rukmani Devi and sister-in-law, Suman had castigated her for insufficient dowry and subjected her to physical and mental harassment and that the sister- in-law had instigated her husband to inflict physical torture, which were supported by the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate further noted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant has clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in the matter of demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment and the fact that the complainant had made a specific mention about this in the letters written to her parents and opined that prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the appellant. Therefore, it must be held that the learned Judicial Magistrate had objectively considered the entire matter and judiciously exercised under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the appellant. Although at one stage, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the appellant and declared that in view of the bar of limitation contained in Section 468 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate could not have taken cognizance against the appellant, the said order was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal of the revision petition. In the post remand order passed by him, the learned Sessions Judge independently examined the entire record and held that prima facie case was made out for initiating Crl.R.No.325 of 2012(O&M) -10- proceedings against the appellant herein under Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, it is not possible to agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellant that issue of summons against the appellant amounts to abuse of the process of the Court."
In the present case as well, specific allegations were levelled in the complaint as well as in the statements of witnesses against the present petitioner, i.e., father-in-law of the deceased. Similar allegations have also been levelled by mother of the deceased, when she appeared before the Court as PW1. By placing reliance upon the said statements impugned order was passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat.
In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.
There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
12.3.2012 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge