Amrik Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C" for short) challenging the order dated 6.7.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Talwandi Sabo, whereby the petitioner was summoned on the application filed by the State u/s 319 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 29 dated 4.4.2008 registered at Police Station Maur u/s 341/324/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was found innocent during investigation. Learned Counsel has further submitted that there was no material available before the trial Court to have summoned the petitioner to face the trial as an accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel has placed reliance on Hukam Chand and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 141, wherein it was held that only the statement of the complainant, who only reiterated the allegations made in the complaint, qua an accused, who was placed in column No. 2 at the time of presentation of challan, was not sufficient to summon the said accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on Tajwant Kaur @ Tejwinder Kaur and Anr. v. State of Punjab through SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib 2004 (2) RCR (Criminal) 264, wherein it was held that a person could not be summoned as an additional accused on vague allegations.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has next placed reliance on Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 200, wherein it was held that merely because some witnesses had mentioned the name of a person or that there was some material against that person, the discretion u/s 319 Cr.P.C. would not be used by the Court to summon the said person as an additional accused in exercise of discretion u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on Sarabjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 388, wherein it was held that a person should be summoned as an additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. only when the Court found that there was evidence on record which would reasonably led to conviction of the person sought to be summoned.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that there was sufficient material before the trial Court to summon the petitioner as an additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves dismissal.

It has been held by the Apex Court in case Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 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 course 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 course 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 u/s 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 u/s 319 CrPC if from 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.

The Magistrate had objectively considered the entire matter and judiciously exercised discretion u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 161 CrPC and by the Magistrate u/s 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 u/s 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 Magistrate and Sessions Judge did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference u/s 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 u/s 498A IPC.

In the present case, the petitioner was placed in column No. 2 at the time of presentation of challan. The complainant had levelled specific allegations against the petitioner that he had inflicted injury on his person with the help of dah on his little finger of right hand. The petitioner had also given a fist blow on the ear of the nephew of the complainant. The fact that whether the injury attributed to the petitioner is self suffered or as alleged by the complainant would more appropriately be gone into and considered during trial. There was sufficient material available before the trial Court, after examination of the complainant and the documents available with the challan, that the petitioner had also participated in the alleged offence. The judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as these are based on different facts. No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.