Criminal Revn. No.2227 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revn. No.2227 of 2013 Date of Decision: July 14, 2014 Vikramjit Singh .......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Present Mr.SS Goraya, Advocate for Mr.Saurav Kharana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.PS Grewal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.MS Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr.RS Khaira, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.5.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby an application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Swaran Singh and Prabhjot Kaur i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 herein as additional accused to face trial along with main accused Dilraj Singh has been dismissed.
2. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
3. Brief facts that would require notice are that FIR bearing No.87 dated 6.6.2012, under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Malik Sushama Rani 2014.07.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revn. No.2227 of 2013 2 Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana City on the statement of Vikramjit Singh i.e. the present petitioner, as regards the unnatural death of his sister, namely, Jaspal Kaur. Complainant had stated that the marriage of his sister Jaspal Kaur had been solemnized about four years prior to recording of the statement with Dilraj Singh son of Swaran Singh. At the time of marriage, dowry articles as per status, in the nature of motorcycle etc., had been given. It is further alleged that soon after marriage, parents of the husband had started harassing Jaspal Kaur for bringing less dowry and even the husband used to beat her. Acceding to the demand of dowry, a double-bed and `10,000/- in cash were given to Jaspal Kaur by mother of complainant, namely, Ravinder Kaur. Further allegations are that in the month of April 2012, Jaspal Kaur had been given beatings by her husband Dilraj Singh as also his parents i.e. Swaran Singh and Prabhjot Kaur and thereafter she was turned out of the matrimonial home. Further allegation is that upon death of the father of the complainant, the land was to be transferred in equal shares amongst the heirs and about two killas of land was coming to the share of deceased Jaspal Kaur. Dilraj Singh at such point had been harassing his wife Jaspal Kaur to get due share in land so that the same could be sold for the purchase of the plot. This was also stated to be a primary reason for deceased Jaspal Kaur to be beaten up by her husband Dilraj Singh and also his parents. Complainant Vikramjit Singh further stated that his 'Bharjai' (wife of brother), namely, Baljit Kaur and a resident of Calcutta had also gone to meet deceased Jaspal Kaur and at that time also, the deceased had disclosed that she was Malik Sushama Rani 2014.07.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revn. No.2227 of 2013 3 returning back to her paternal home as the dispute had taken place between the husband and wife on account of demand of a Car. On the date of recording of the statement, a phone call from Prabhjot Kaur i.e. mother-in-law of the deceased was stated to have been received at about 2.30 p.m. that Jaspal Kaur had suffered a heart attack and had expired.
4. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the Court while dismissing the application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to summon the in-laws, namely, Swaran Singh and Prabhjot Kaur as additional accused has merely noticed that during the course of investigation conducted by police authorities, Swaran Singh and Prabhjot Kaur had been found innocent and kept in column No.2 of the final report.
5. This Court has perused the initial statement of complainant Vikramjit Singh on the basis of which the FIR was registered as also the statement of Vikramjit Singh recorded by the Court as PW1 and placed on record as Annexure P5. In the initial statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also in his testimony before the Court, complainant Vikramjit Singh i.e. the petitioner herein has levelled allegations as regards harassment for bringing less dowry, frequent beatings given to deceased Jaspal Kaur as also of her being turned out of the matrimonial home against Dilraj Singh i.e. husband of Jaspal Kaur as also against his father-in-law Swaran Singh and mother- in-law Prabhjot Kaur. Another fact that would require to be noticed is that even though as per telephonic call having been Malik Sushama Rani 2014.07.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revn. No.2227 of 2013 4 made by Prabhjot Kaur i.e. the mother-in-law regarding deceased Jaspal Kaur having suffered a heart attack and having consequentially died, the cause of death of deceased Jaspal Kaur has been opined to be on account of strangulation.
6. At this stage, reference may be made to a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the scope of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had come up for consideration. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and others, 1983(1) RCR (Criminal) 73, 73 the Court had struck a note of caution by saying that the power to be exercised under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an extra- ordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against another person who had not been cited as accused.
7. In Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75, 75 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the basic requirement under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected during trial or enquiry regarding two aspects. Firstly, that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case has committed an offence; secondly, that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused.
8. An analysis of the judgments referred to hereinabove as also other judgments on the issue would clearly bring out that Malik Sushama Rani 2014.07.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revn. No.2227 of 2013 5 the discretion vested with the Court under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be exercised in a routine manner and should be exercised, be it in terms of declining or accepting an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by passing a reasoned order. Even while declining an application to summon a person as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the reasoning must be discernible from the order that the Court passes.
9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the impugned order apart from taking notice of the fact that respondents No.2 and 3 i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law had been found to be innocent and had been placed in column No.2 of the final report, does not disclose any other reasoning and application of mind. The allegations contained in the initial complaint of complainant Vikramjit Singh i.e. the present petitioner as also his testimony before the Court as PW1 have not even been referred to. The impugned order dated 18.5.2013 is not only cryptic but is non-speaking as well.
10. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.5.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana is set aside. The case is remitted back to the trial Court to re-consider the issue in the light of the parameters laid down for exercise of the powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments that have been noticed hereinabove. A fresh order be passed within a period of three months from the date of Malik Sushama Rani 2014.07.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Revn. No.2227 of 2013 6 passing of this order after hearing the parties concerned.
11. It is clarified that the directions contained in the present order to re-consider the matter may not be construed that this Court has in any manner expressed any opinion as regards respondents No.2 and 3 to be summoned as additional accused. Such aspect is to be dealt by the trial Court at the stage of passing the order afresh and on merits.
12. Disposed of accordingly. ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) July 14, 2014 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter?. (Yes/No) Malik Sushama Rani 2014.07.15 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document