Bharpur Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The crux of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, in the wake of complaint of petitioner-complainant Bharpur Singh son of Hari Singh (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against accused Jaswinder Singh (husband), Balbir Kaur (mother-in-law), Swaranjit Kaur alias Fano & Meeta wife of Shingara Singh (sisters-in-law) of Gagandeep Kaur (deceased), vide FIR No. 76 dated 1.5.2011 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana Rural. The police did not challan the remaining accused, but submitted the final police report (challan) only against Balbir Kaur (mother-in-law). Consequently, the complainant filed an application u/s. 319 Cr. PC for summoning the main accused Jaswinder Singh (husband), Swaranjit Kaur alias Fano & Meeta wife of Shingara Singh (sisters-in-law) as additional accused. The trial Court negated the plea of the complainant to summon Swaranjit Kaur alias Fano & Meeta wife of Shingara Singh (sisters-in-law). At the same time, main accused Jaswinder Singh (husband) was ordered to be summoned to face the trial u/s. 304-B IPC as additional accused, by way of impugned order dated 6.7.2012.

Aggrieved thereby, the complainant has preferred the present revision petition to summon Swaranjit Kaur alias Fano & Meeta wife of Shingara Singh (sisters-in-law) as additional accused as well in this Court, invoking the provisions of section 401 Cr. PC.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.

As is evident from the record that Swaranjit Kaur alias Fano (sister-in-law) is residing in Canada and Meeta wife of Shingara Singh (sister-in-law) is residing in her matrimonial home. Very vague and general allegations of taunting the deceased for bringing less dowry are assigned to them in the FIR (Annexure P1). It is now well settled principle of law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in a celebrated judgment in case Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324(1), which was subsequently followed in a line of judgments, wherein it was ruled that "for the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases, where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry death. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused."

In the instant case, the trial Court has noticed that Swaranjit Kaur alias Fano (sister-in-law) is married since long and is residing with her husband in Canada, whereas Meeta wife of Shingara Singh (sister-in-law) is married for the last 20 years and is residing with her husband & children peacefully in her matrimonial home. These ladies are not even beneficiary. Therefore, the trial Judge has rightly dismissed the application of complainant u/s. 319 Cr. PC to summon them.

Meaning thereby, the trial Judge has examined the matter in the right perspective, correctly dismissed the application u/s. 319 Cr. PC and recorded the cogent grounds in this regard. The learned counsel for petitioner did not point out any reason, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned order. Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the limited revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr. PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such.