Dilbag Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1055123
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-24-2013
AppellantDilbag Singh
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
crl.rev.no.3236 of 2012 (o&m) 1 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh crl.rev.no.3236 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision:24. 1.2013 dilbag singh ......petitioner versus state of haryana and others .......respondents coram: hon'ble mrs.justice sabina present: mr.sandeep malik, advocate for m. k.d.s.hooda, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.gaurav dhir, d.a.g.haryana. mr.rakesh nehra, advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3. **** sabina, j. this petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner under section 401 of the code of criminal procedure 1973, (cr.p.c.for short).challenging the order dated 5.5.2012 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under section 319 cr.p.c.for summoning respondents no.2 and 3 as additional accused was dismissed. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application was moved by the prosecution under section 319 cr.p.c.for summoning accused mange ram, satya (respondents no.2 and 3).ramesh and nirmala. respondents no.2 and 3 were the father- crl.rev.no.3236 of 2012 (o&m) 2 in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. there was sufficient material on record to summon respondents no.2 and 3 to face the trial as additional accused. learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that there was no new material on record entitling the summoning of respondents no.2 and 3 to face the trial as additional accused. after hearing learned counsel for the parties, i am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. section 319 cr.p.c.reads as under:- “power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- 1) where, in the cours.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 crl.rev.no.3236 of 2012 (o&m) 3 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.” it has been held by the apex court in case suman versus state of rajasthan and another, (2010) 1 supreme court cases 250 as under:- “a reading of the plain language of section 319(1) crpc makes it clear that a person not already an accused in a case can be proceeded against if in the cours.of any inquiry into or trial of an offence it appears from the evidence that such person has also committed any offence and deserves to be tried with other accused. there is nothing in the language of section 319(1) crpc from which it can be inferred that a person who is named in the fir or complaint but against whom charge sheet is not filed by the police, cannot be proceeded against even though in the cours.of any inquiry into or trial of any offence the court finds that such person has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the other accused.” “the process issued against the appellant crl.rev.no.3236 of 2012 (o&m) 4 under section 319 crpc 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. a person who is named in the fir 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 under section 319 crpc if from the evidence collected/produced in the cours.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.” “the magistrate had objectively considered the entire matter and judiciously exercised discretion under section 319 crpc for taking cognizance against the appellant. the issue of summons against the appellant was not an abuse of the process of the court. while deciding the application filed under section 319 crpc, the magistrate noticed the allegations made by respondent no.2 in the complaint that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had castigated her for insufficient dowry and subjected her to physical and mental harassment and that the sister-in-law had instigated the complainant’s husband to inflict physical torture upon her, which were supported by the statements recorded by the police under section 161 crpc and by the magistrate under section crl.rev.no.3236 of 2012 (o&m”164. crpc. in her complaint respondent no.2 alleged that after one week of the marriage, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law (the appellant) told her that in the marriage, items like scooter, fridge, air conditioner, etc.were not given and the marriage party was not served well and that on the instigations of the mother-in-law and the appellant sister-in-law, the husband gave beating with the belan, and the appellant forcibly removed the rings.” “the complainant clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant and made a specific mention about this in the letters written to her parents and the magistrate opined that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the appellant. the father and mother of respondent no.2 and four other persons, whose statements were recorded under section 161 crpc, clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in harassing respondent no.2 and instigating the complainant’s husband to inflict torture upon her. despite this, the police did not file charge-sheet against the appellant thinking that she had no occasion to make demand of dowry or harass respondent no.2 because the appellant was living with her husband. therefore, the trial of the appellant should proceed and should be decided expeditiously”. “the high court broadly referred to the factual matrix of the case and held that the orders passed by the crl.rev.no.3236 of 2012 (o&m) 6 magistrate and sessions judge did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under section 482 crpc. the approach adopted by the high court is in consonance with the settled law. although at one stage, the sessions judge allowed the revision filed by the appellant and declared that in view of the bar of limitation contained in section 468 crpc, the 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 sessions judge independently examined the entire record and held that prima facie case was made out for initiating proceedings against the appellant herein under section 498-a ipc.” annexure p-2 is the statement of pw-13 complainant dilbag singh. a perusal of the same reveals that he has levelled specific allegations against respondents no.2 and 3. complainant has stated that six months prior to the incident, accused had harassed his daughter on account of demand of dowry. a meeting was convened. in the said meeting, respondents no.2 and 3 and amit had assured that in future they would not harass his daughter and keep her in the matrimonial home properly. after some time, amit left his daughter at village bamboli. however, amit did not come back to take his daughter to the matrimonial home. when the complainant tried to call the family members of amit in this regard, crl.rev.no.3236 of 2012 (o&m) 7 they did not attend to the telephonic calls. when the complainant met respondent no.2, he said that he could not interfere in the said matter and he should talk to respondent no.3 satya. thereafter, in a conversation held by the complainant with respondent no.3 and amit in the presence of his daughter, satya and amit raised a demand of ` 5,00,000/-. when the complainant assured that the said amount would be paid after the marriage of his son, then complainant left his daughter in her in-laws house. however, on 22.10.2006, complainant received an information that his daughter had died due to hanging. thus, from the statement of pw-13, it is evident that specific allegations have been levelled against respondents no.2 and 3. the learned trial court fell in error, while holding that no specific allegations of cruelty had been levelled against respondents no.2 to and 3. accordingly, this petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 5.5.2012, qua respondent no.2 and 3, is set aside. consequently, the application moved by the prosecution, qua summoning of respondents no.2 and 3, as additional accused to face the trial under section 319 cr.p.c., is allowed. (sabina) judge january 24, 2013 anita
Judgment:

Crl.Rev.No.3236 of 2012 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.3236 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:

24. 1.2013 Dilbag Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sandeep Malik, Advocate for M.

K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Gaurav Dhir, D.A.G.Haryana.

Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

**** SABINA, J.

This petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (Cr.P.C.for short).challenging the order dated 5.5.2012 passed by the trial Court, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C.for summoning respondents No.2 and 3 as additional accused was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C.for summoning accused Mange Ram, Satya (respondents No.2 and 3).Ramesh and Nirmala.

Respondents No.2 and 3 were the father- Crl.Rev.No.3236 of 2012 (O&M) 2 in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased.

There was sufficient material on record to summon respondents No.2 and 3 to face the trial as additional accused.

Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that there was no new material on record entitling the summoning of respondents No.2 and 3 to face the trial as additional accused.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

Section 319 Cr.P.C.reads as under:- “Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- 1) where, in the couRs.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 Crl.Rev.No.3236 of 2012 (O&M) 3 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.”

It has been held by the Apex Court in case Suman versus State of Rajasthan and another, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 250 as under:- “A reading of the plain language of Section 319(1) CrPC makes it clear that a person not already an accused in a case can be proceeded against if in the couRs.of any inquiry into or trial of an offence it appears from the evidence that such person has also committed any offence and deserves to be tried with other accused.

There is nothing in the language of Section 319(1) CrPC from which it can be inferred that a person who is named in the FIR or complaint but against whom charge sheet is not filed by the police, cannot be proceeded against even though in the couRs.of any inquiry into or trial of any offence the court finds that such person has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the other accused.”

“The process issued against the appellant Crl.Rev.No.3236 of 2012 (O&M) 4 under Section 319 CrPC 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.

A person who is named in the FIR 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 under Section 319 CrPC if from the evidence collected/produced in the couRs.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.”

“The Magistrate had objectively considered the entire matter and judiciously exercised discretion under Section 319 CrPC for taking cognizance against the appellant.

The issue of summons against the appellant was not an abuse of the process of the court.

While deciding the application filed under Section 319 CrPC, the Magistrate noticed the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the complaint that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had castigated her for insufficient dowry and subjected her to physical and mental harassment and that the sister-in-law had instigated the complainant’s husband to inflict physical torture upon her, which were supported by the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC and by the Magistrate under Section Crl.Rev.No.3236 of 2012 (O&M”

164. CrPC.

In her complaint Respondent No.2 alleged that after one week of the marriage, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law (the appellant) told her that in the marriage, items like scooter, fridge, air conditioner, etc.were not given and the marriage party was not served well and that on the instigations of the mother-in-law and the appellant sister-in-law, the husband gave beating with the belan, and the appellant forcibly removed the rings.”

“The complainant clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant and made a specific mention about this in the letters written to her parents and the Magistrate opined that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the appellant.

The father and mother of respondent No.2 and four other persons, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 CrPC, clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in harassing Respondent No.2 and instigating the complainant’s husband to inflict torture upon her.

Despite this, the police did not file charge-sheet against the appellant thinking that she had no occasion to make demand of dowry or harass Respondent No.2 because the appellant was living with her husband.

Therefore, the trial of the appellant should proceed and should be decided expeditiously”.

“The High Court broadly referred to the factual matrix of the case and held that the orders passed by the Crl.Rev.No.3236 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Magistrate and Sessions Judge did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC.

The approach adopted by the High Court is in consonance with the settled law.

Although at one stage, the Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the appellant and declared that in view of the bar of limitation contained in Section 468 CrPC, the 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 Sessions Judge independently examined the entire record and held that prima facie case was made out for initiating proceedings against the appellant herein under Section 498-A IPC.”

Annexure P-2 is the statement of PW-13 complainant Dilbag Singh.

A perusal of the same reveals that he has levelled specific allegations against respondents No.2 and 3.

Complainant has stated that six months prior to the incident, accused had harassed his daughter on account of demand of dowry.

A meeting was convened.

In the said meeting, respondents No.2 and 3 and Amit had assured that in future they would not harass his daughter and keep her in the matrimonial home properly.

After some time, Amit left his daughter at village Bamboli.

However, Amit did not come back to take his daughter to the matrimonial home.

When the complainant tried to call the family members of Amit in this regard, Crl.Rev.No.3236 of 2012 (O&M) 7 they did not attend to the telephonic calls.

When the complainant met respondent No.2, he said that he could not interfere in the said matter and he should talk to respondent No.3 Satya.

Thereafter, in a conversation held by the complainant with respondent No.3 and Amit in the presence of his daughter, Satya and Amit raised a demand of ` 5,00,000/-.

When the complainant assured that the said amount would be paid after the marriage of his son, then complainant left his daughter in her in-laws house.

However, on 22.10.2006, complainant received an information that his daughter had died due to hanging.

Thus, from the statement of PW-13, it is evident that specific allegations have been levelled against respondents No.2 and 3.

The learned trial Court fell in error, while holding that no specific allegations of cruelty had been levelled against respondents No.2 to and 3.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

The impugned order dated 5.5.2012, qua respondent No.2 and 3, is set aside.

Consequently, the application moved by the prosecution, qua summoning of respondents No.2 and 3, as additional accused to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is allowed.

(SABINA) JUDGE January 24, 2013 anita