Dharambir and Another vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The compendium of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and oozing out, from the record, is that the marriage of complainant Suresh Devi, daughter of Ram Pal, was solemnized with Mahabir Singh, son of Pritam Singh on 23.2.2006, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Her parents were stated to have given the sufficient dowry articles according to their status at the time of marriage, but the accused were not satisfied. They started harassing and treating her with cruelty and did not stop to raise the demands, despite convening of the panchayat. Accused also threatened her with dire consequences. The case of the prosecution, in brief in so far as relevant, was that on 6.9.2003 at about 11 PM, when the complainant was sleeping in a Chaubara, then, her mother-in-law Parmeshwari, brother-in-law Dharamvir (Jeth) and Paramjit (Jethani) entered the room. She woke up. Thereafter, they overpowered her and her husband poured some poisonous substance in her mouth in a glass and she became unconscious. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against all the accused, vide FIR No. 97 dated 10.9.2003 (Annexure P1) for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 498-A, 328 and 506 IPC by the police Station Dhand, District Kaithal.

During the course of investigation, the police did not challan petitioner Dharamvir (Jeth) and Paramjit (Jethani) and submitted the challan/final police report, in terms of Section 173 Cr.PC against the remaining accused, they were accordingly charge sheeted by the trial Court and case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.

In order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution examined complainant Suresh Devi as PW1, who has categorically stated that petitioners caught hold of her and her husband poured some poisonous substance in her mouth. Consequently, the prosecution moved an application u/s 319 Cr.PC and petitioners were earlier ordered to be summoned by the trial Court, by way of order dated 21.11.2007.

Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners earlier filed CRR No. 1856 of 2008, which was accepted on technical grounds and this Court directed the trial Court to consider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, by virtue of order dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure P4). Thereafter, the trial Court re-examined the matter and again summoned the petitioners as accused to face the trial alongwith their other co-accused, by means of impugned summoning order dated 1.2.2010.

The petitioners-accused still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petition to challenge the impugned summoning order, 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 considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition.

Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel for petitioners that since the trial Court did not consider the matter afresh as directed by this Court, vide order (Annexure P4), so, the impugned summoning order again deserves to be set aside, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

As is evident from the record, that this Court, in earlier order (Annexure P4), has directed the trial Court to consider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof, the trial Judge again critically examined the matter and summoned the petitioners as accused, vide impugned summoning order. Not only that, there are direct allegations in the FIR (Annexure P1) that on 6.9.2003 at about 11 PM, all the accused entered the Chaubara. The petitioners caught hold and overpowered the complainant, whereas her husband poured some poisonous substance in her mouth. The complainant has duly corroborated her version contained in the FIR on all vital counts, while appearing as PW1. Her statement finds further corroboration from the medical evidence of Dr. M.S. Shah, who proved the presence of small dose of sulphas or heavy dose of sedative in the stomach consumed by her. The mere fact that there is another medical opinion (Annexure P3), ipso facto, is not a ground to set aside the impugned summoning order.

As to whether the medical evidence of Dr. M.S. Shah or report (Annexure P3) are genuine or otherwise and what is their effects, would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, relatable to evidence, cannot be appreciated at this initial stage. Therefore, the impugned summoning order is in consonance with the ratio of law laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in case U.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. M/s. Mohan Meaking Ltd. and Others, , wherein, it was ruled as under (para 6):-

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court it has been pointed out that the legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing process. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons vide Kanti Bhadra Shah and Another Vs. The State of West Bengal, . The following passage will be apposite in this context:

If there is no legal requirement that the trial Court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial Courts be further burdened with such an extra work ? The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the Court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all (sic) causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in trial Courts would further be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages of the trial.

(Emphasis supplied)

Meaning thereby, the trial Judge has examined the matter in the right perspective, correctly summoned the petitioners and recorded the valid reasons in this regard. 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 petitioners-accused, so, the impugned summoning order deserves to be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition in this relevant direction.