Jagmohan and Others vs State of Punjab

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Jagmohan, Ram Lok and Soni, the petitioners have brought this revision petition under the provisions of section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 21.05.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, (Adhoc), Ropar summoning the petitioners to stand trial for an offence punishable under sections 493, 496, 498A, 406, 419, 420 and 376 read with section 120B IPC alongwith other accused, who are already facing trial in the case. By way of FIR no. 138 dated 09.09.2011 complainant Sonia Bala lodged a report against Hem Raj, Simran Kaur and the petitioners. She had claimed that Hem Raj had been married with Simran Kaur and had two children from her. She had further claimed that Hem Raj came in contact with her at her place of work and represented himself to be unmarried. According to her, he even met her in the presence of Simran Kaur and had introduced her as his sister and also told that her husband had gone abroad and that she had been living with him. She has further claimed that Hem Raj had come to her house with the marriage proposal having Simran Kaur, Ramlok, Jagmohan, Naresh Kumar Soni and Vikram with him. The complainant has further claimed that she agreed to marry with Hem Raj and in the said marriage all the accused participated.

The police after due investigation challaned Hem Raj, Naresh Kumar and Simran Kaur and found the petitioners to be innocent. At the trial after examining Sonia Bala, complainant as PW-1, the prosecution moved an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 21.05.2012 the said application has been allowed and the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition has been filed.

I have heard Mr. C.L. Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents placed on record very carefully.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had no connection with the marriage of Hem Raj with Sonia Bala. According to him, the police found the involvement of Naresh Kumar and Simran Kaur alongwith Hem Raj in the said matter and had submitted challan against them. He drew my attention to the cross-examination of Sonia Bala at page no. 37 of the paper book where she is shown to have volunteered that all of them have not attended the marriage. According to him, this sentence makes it clear that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case.

The complainant Sonia Bala had been cross-examined regarding the entrustment of gold ornaments and she has admitted that there were no photographs on the file showing entrustment of dowry articles to Ram Lok, Naresh and Soni etc. Thereafter she volunteered that all of them had not attended the marriage.

It is a case where Ram Lok is claimed to have disowned Hem Raj, his son. No such publication has been brought on record. A sentence cannot be picked up from the statement of Sonia Bala and cannot be read in isolation. The statement has to be read as a whole and the same clearly shows that the petitioners had attended the marriage. The very fact that they had attended the marriage of Hem Raj with Sonia Bala would be clearly evidenced by her statement and it would appear from the same that the petitioners have committed the offences. This is the requirement of section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning an additional accused. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court(Adhoc) Ropar has taken pains and has found a prima-facie case against the petitioners for being summoned to stand trial as accused alongwith the accused already facing trial. I find no illegality in the said order and consequently find no merit in the revision petition. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed.