Geeta vs State of Haryana

Inderjit Singh, J.—Petitioner-Geeta has filed this criminal revision petition u/s 401 Cr.P.C. against the State of Haryana challenging the order dated 20.3.2014 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Kaithal dismissing the application filed u/s 319 Cr.P.C. It is mainly stated in the petition that the petitioner is the complainant and has made a complaint to the Police. Earlier the Police refused to register the FIR. Then the petitioner approached the Illaqa Magistrate u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the FIR was registered. There were total seven persons, who were named as accused including one Vigilance Inspector, Vigilance Office, Ambala, who used his influence and got the names shifted in column No. 2. The Police presented the challan only against one person, namely, Ranjit Singh. An application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was filed to summon the remaining six accused, which was dismissed by the Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that the FIR was got registered by the present revision petitioner against her husband Ranjit Singh, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, uncle, maternal uncle and Shamsher Singh family friend, who is stated to be Vigilance Inspector in Vigilance Office, Ambala. As per the allegations in the FIR, marriage of the complainant was solemnized with Ranjit Singh, against whom the challan has been presented. As per the FIR, the complainant is a divorced lady and Ranjit Singh developed intimacy with her and allured her on the pretext that he would marry her and he committed rape upon her against her wishes, thereafter, so many times by making promise to marry her. Ranjit Singh took the complainant to his home and accused No. 1 to 3 pressurized the complainant to terminate the pregnancy if she wants to marry accused No. 1. It is also stated in the FIR that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community. When accused No. 2 to 4 came to know regarding this fact, they refused to marry accused No. 1 with the complainant. Accused No. 1 started to live with the complainant as husband and wife after solemnizing marriage in a Temple and both of them resided at Teontha and Kurukshetra. Accused Randeep Singh-maternal uncle and Shamsher Singh, Vigilance Inspector and other relatives raised objection on the marriage. The complainant and Ranjit Singh filed petition before the Hon''ble High Court to seek protection.

A perusal of the FIR shows that the main allegations are against accused Ranjit Singh. From the perusal of the FIR, it is also clear that the complainant resided along with Ranjit Singh-accused No. 1 at various stations. The allegations of rape etc. are also against Ranjit Singh. It is also clear from the record that there are no allegations regarding giving of dowry and entrustment to the accused. Further, the FIR is not for the offence u/s 498-A IPC. Rather, it is for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 376, 376-D, 354-A, 370, 354-B and 120-B IPC and during investigation father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, uncle, maternal uncle and Shamsher Singh, Vigilance Inspector were found innocent and they have not been challaned. The complainant appeared in the Court and then application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was filed, which was dismissed by the Court by passing a detailed and reasoned order.

The present petition is a revision petition. In the revision petition, this Court is only to see as to what illegality has been committed by the lower Court while passing the impugned order.

I have gone through the impugned order. The learned Judge, Special Court, Kaithal, while passing the impugned order, has given the reasoning and has also discussed the law. From the perusal of the order, it cannot be held that it is not as per law. The mere fact that name of the persons have been mentioned in the FIR and the complainant also mentioned the names while appearing in the Court, is not sufficient to summon the additional accused u/s 319 Cr.P.C. The additional accused cannot be summoned in a mechanical manner. The Court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and it should appear to the Court from the evidence on record in the facts and circumstances of that case that these additional accused, regarding which application has been filed for summoning, have been involved in the offence and they should be tried together with the accused already challaned.

From the record, it looks that it is a matrimonial dispute. It is nowadays a tendency that when a matrimonial dispute arose between the complainant and her husband, all the family members and relatives of the husband are roped in. The complainant, as per argument, was turned out of the house on 5.2.2013 and then this complaint was filed on 5.7.2013 after five months. All these facts are to be taken into account while summoning the additional accused.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, and of this Court in Man Mohan v. Smt. Santosh and another, 2012(4) R.C.R. (Cr.) 33 and Ved Parkash v. State of Haryana, 1998(2) R.C.R. (Cr.) 786. These judgments having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case.

From the perusal of the record and from the impugned order, I find that no illegality has been committed by the learned lower Court. The impugned order passed by the learned lower Court is correct and as per law and does not require any interference from this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and the same is upheld. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.