Bhupinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C" for short) challenging the order dated 6.3.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana, whereby the application filed by the State u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Gurmukh Singh as an accused was dismissed.

After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed.

In the present case, challan was presented against accused Amrik Singh and Kulwinder Singh. Gurmukh Singh was, however, placed in column No. 2 at the time of presentation of challan. PW-1 Bhupinder Singh, while appearing in the witness box, categorically deposed that Kulwinder Singh, Gurmukh Singh and Amrik Singh had given beatings to his son Ranjit with sticks in the varandah of the house of Amrik Singh. His son was tied with the pillar by the said persons.

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."

Learned trial Court had erred in dismissing the application filed by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. There was sufficient material before the trial Court during trial by way of the statement of PW-1 as well as documents attached with the challan to the effect that Gurmukh Singh had also participated in the alleged offence. Learned trial Court has failed to state any reason as to why prima facie the statement of PW-1 was not liable to be believed.

Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.3.2005 is set aside. Consequently, application filed by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is allowed.