Ganesh Dass vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a Criminal Revision filed under Section 401 read with Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order dated 14th May, 1996 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, who decided to frame charges against petitioner Ganesh Dass under Sections 302/34 and 201, Indian Penal Code.

One Balwant Singh son of Kundan Singh, resident of Ghumar Mandi, Ferozepur Cantt., made allegations that he had two Canters from which he earned his livelihood. He had two sons and three daughters. The name of his elder son was Rachhpal Singh while the name of the younger son was Jarnail Singh, aged about 24 years. Jarnail Singh had been on visiting terms to the house of Ganesh Pandit, who was a Mechanic in Punjab Roadways Depot, Ferozepur, for the last about 4/5 years. During that period Jarnail Singh had developed illicit relations with Usha, wife of Ganesh. The complainant and his family members used to prevent Jarnail Singh from visiting the house of Ganesh petitioner. The complainant alleges that Smt. Usha had enticed his son by giving him allurement saying that he should not get himself married anywhere and that she would get him married with her sister. After some time the parents of Smt. Usha refused to do so. Thereafter Smt. Usha gave him allurement that she would get her daughter Raveena married with him. Jarnail Singh used to go to the house of Ganesh daily in the evening and used to return after two/three hours. Further it is alleged that Jarnail Singh was adamant that in case he was to marry, he would marry Raveena, daughter of Ganesh, alone and no other. On 12.1.1994 at about 6 P.M. Jarnail Singh as usual went to the house of Ganesh Pandit. At about 12 midnight, Ganesh, his son Raja and two other persons brought Jarnail Singh to the house of the complainant in a Jeep. At that time the light of the house was on. Those persons left Jarnail Singh in the Drawing Room and ran away along with the jeep and nothing was told to the complainant as to what had happened to Jarnail Singh. Thereafter the complainant saw that Jarnail Singh had already expired. Further it is alleged by the complainant that he was fully confident that his son Jarnail Singh had been murdered by Ganesh, his wife Usha Rani, his son Raja and his daughter Raveena, who have conspired with each other and have administered some poisonous substance to his son Jarnail Singh.

As per the complainant the motive for the crime is that Ganesh and his wife Usha did not want their daughter Raveena to be married with Jarnail Singh (deceased) as he was considerably older than the age of their daughter Raveena. The case was investigated and on 10th March, 1995 the Public Prosecutor presented the cancellation report for the cancellation of the case. On the presentation of the cancellation report, a notice was issued to the complainant. On 28th July, 1994 the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur. On 21st October, 1995 the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, after recording the statement of the complainant and taking into consideration that the complainant had also filed a private complaint against the accused, which was pending at that time in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, did not accept the cancellation report and directed the prosecution to put the challan against the accused persons before the Illaqa Magistrate who directed him to merge the present case with the complaint already pending in his Court. The learned Magistrate recorded the preliminary evidence on the complaint. In the meanwhile the challan was also received from the Police. The challan was committed to the Court of Session on 25th March, 1996 and the complaint papers were ordered to be attached with the complaint. As per the petitioner, he submitted application on 14th March, 1996 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, praying that before framing the charge, the cancellation report earlier submitted by the Police be taken on record and it may also be considered before framing the charge but the learned trial Court rejected the prayer and framed the charge against the petitioner under Sections 302/201, Indian Penal Code, which is being challenged in the present revision petition on two grounds firstly that the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order (Annexure P3) could not order to the Police to put the challan against the accused persons before the Illaqa Magistrate and that at the most he could order for further investigation and by not doing so, an illegality has been committed by the Court in framing the charge; and secondly the trial Court before framing the charge did not take into consideration the cancellation report irrespective of the fact that a specific application to that effect was also moved by the petitioner.

Both the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the motion stage did not find favour with this Court as in the opinion of this Court, though the direction dated 21.10.1995 passed by the Court of Session was to the effect that the challan against the accused persons be filed before the Illaqa Magistrate, but nevertheless the Court of Sessions was aware of the fact that a private complaint against the accused persons was also pending for commitment and both the challan and the complaint were committed to the Court of Session against the petitioner for trial. The application, which was moved by the learned counsel for the petitioner for inviting the cancellation report, has been rightly rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the said cancellation report was not required to be summoned because for the purpose of framing the charge, the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., and the other relevant documents attached with the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was required to be considered. The cancellation report which was sought to be relied upon by the accused is only an opinion evidence of the Police and was not binding upon the trial Court. Further the complaint filed by the complainant was also taken note of. The complaint and the case were committed to the Court of Session, who took cognizance not only on the cancellation report but also on the commitment of the complaint itself. After considering all those documents, the trial Court framed the charge. The cancellation report relied upon by the accused was also taken note of and rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur earlier and his order is dated 21.10.1995 (Annexure P3) when he did not endorse the cancellation report and ordered for the putting of the challan against the petitioner. On 14.5.1996 before framing the charge, the learned trial Court took into consideration all the other relevant documents placed on the file besides the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., and then came to the conclusion that there were grounds to presume that all the accused, i.e., Ganesh Dass, Usha Rani, Rabina and Avan Kumar alias Raja had committed an offence punishable under Sections 302/34, I.P.C., whereas, the accused Ganesh Dass and Avan Kumar alias Raja had also committed an offence punishable under Section 201, I.P.C. In this regard I would like to reproduce the following order, which would show that the trial Court complied with the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure :

"I have heard the learned Additional P.P. for the State, learned counsel for the accused and gone through the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and all the other relevant documents placed on the file. I am fully satisfied that there are grounds to presume that all the accused, viz. Ganesh Dass, Usha Rani, Rabina and Avan Kumar alias Raja have committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34, I.P.C., whereas accused Ganesh Dass and Avan Kumar alias Raja have also committed an offence punishable under section 201, I.P.C. Let the accused be chargesheeted accordingly."

While framing the charge, the trial Court is supposed to take into consideration the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the parties of the case and then to formulate an opinion either to discharge or to frame the charge.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and another, 1996(4) Recent Criminal Cases 1, and submitted that the trial Court committed an illegality when it did not take into consideration the cancellation report, earlier filed by the Police before, framing the charge. This authority is not helpful to the learned counsel for the petitioner. This authority only lays down that the Court of Session has the power to look into any material other than produced by the prosecution at the stage of framing of the charge. The trial Court in the present case was already cognizant of the fact that the cancellation report submitted by the Police was not approved by the Sessions Judge and for that reason directions were given to the Police for the presentation of the challan. Secondly, while framing the charge against the accused on the private complaint, the cancellation report was also mentioned therein and after taking all those documents into consideration, the trial Court opted to frame the charges against the accused under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. read with Section 201, I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law propounded by their Lordships of the Supreme Court but in the present case after the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, in fact the Police investigated the case and recorded the statements of the witnesses and then submitted the challan. The Police did not straightaway submit the challan; rather it further collected the evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused. No doubt the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not happily worded, but the Police has adopted the procedure as envisaged under Sections 169, 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore the charge has been framed not only on the Police report but also on the private complaint filed by the father of the deceased.

This Court is of the opinion that the revision has been filed just to delay the proceedings. There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge when he framed the charges and proceeded with the trial.

Finally, this revision petition is hereby dismissed being without any merit.