Karnail Singh vs State of Haryana

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The matrix of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, the marriage of Harjeet Kaur alias Simranpreet Kaur, younger sister of petitioner-complainant Karnail Singh s/o Jagmohan Singh (for brevity "the complainant") was solemnized with main accused Kamaljit Singh son of Darshan Singh on 26.11.2006 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. Her parents were stated to have spent more than Rs. 13 lacs and gave a Ford Fiesta car along with Sofa set and other customary dowry articles to Kamaljit Singh at the time of marriage. Thereafter, he and his family members were claimed to have harassed, humiliated, gave beatings and compelled Harjeet Kaur to bring more money from her parents.

The case of the prosecution further proceeds that about two months prior to the present occurrence, main accused Kamaljit Singh tried to kill her by throwing her in the Gobar Gas Plant installed in his house. However, the matter was compromised with the intervention of panchayat. Thereafter, Harjeet Kaur and Kamaljit Singh started residing separately along with their son Manav in a rented accommodation in Shakti Nagar, Tohana. Kamaljit Singh was stated to have poured the boiling water on Harjeet Kaur, ten days prior to the lodging of the FIR. The complainant lodged the report with the police on the basis of suspicion with the allegation that Kamaljit Singh has killed his sister with the help of his family members. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against main accused Kamaljit Singh (husband) and his father Darshan Singh (father-in-law) of the deceased, vide FIR No. 321 dated 4.11.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/s. 498A, 304B, 406 and 201 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad in the manner depicted here-in-above.

During the course of investigation, the police found the relatives of main accused innocent and exonerated them. However, after completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) against main accused Kamaljit Singh and his father. They were accordingly charge sheeted for the commission of pointed offences and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution by the trial Court.

Likewise, the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, examined complainant Karnail Singh as PW1. Thereafter, the application u/s. 319 Cr.PC. filed on behalf of prosecution to summon Jaswinder Kaur wife of Darshan Singh (mother-in-law) was dismissed by the trial Court, by way of impugned order dated 22.4.2014 (Annexure P4).

Not only that, the second application moved u/s. 319 Cr.PC. on behalf of prosecution to summon Jaswinder Kaur (mother-in-law) was dismissed as well, by means of impugned order dated 24.5.2014 (Annexure P6) by the trial Court.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-complainant has preferred the present revision petition to challenge the impugned orders (Annexures P4 and P6), invoking the provisions of section 401 Cr.PC.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this regard.

Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since there was sufficient evidence on record to summon, so, the trial Court ought to have summoned Jaswinder Kaur (mother-in-law) of the deceased, as additional accused, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

As is evident from the record that initially, the complainant lodged the complaint in the police station on the basis of suspicion against main accused Kamaljit Singh and his family members. Neither any specific role nor any particular part is attributed to Jaswinder Kaur (mother-in-law) in the FIR. All the main allegations of beating and cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned to main accused Kamaljit Singh (husband) of the deceased. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that it has been specifically mentioned in the FIR by the complainant that his sister was residing separately with her husband & son in a rented accommodation, whereas Jaswinder Kaur and Darshan Singh (parents-in-law) of the deceased were separately residing from them. No doubt, the complainant, while appearing as PW1 in Court, has tried to involve Jaswinder Kaur for the commission of indicated offences, but no implicit reliance can be placed upon his statement (Annexure P2), as he has totally changed the basic initial prosecution version contained in the FIR. Once, it is proved on record that Jaswinder Kaur (mother-in-law) was residing separately, then how, when and in what manner, she has treated the deceased with cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry soon before her death, remained an unfolded mystery. Therefore, to me, the trial Court has correctly declined the prayer of prosecution to summon her in this relevant connection.

Sequelly. there is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. It is now well-settled proposition of law that, the Court while deciding, to invoke the power u/s 319 of the Code, must address itself about the other constraints imposed by the first limb of sub-section(4), that proceedings in respect of newly-added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-examined. The whole proceedings must be recommenced from the beginning of the trial, summon the witnesses once again and examine and cross-examine them in a de-novo trial, in order to reach the stage where it had reached earlier. If the main witnesses have already been examined, then the Court must seriously consider whether the objects sought to be achieved by such exercise are worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. Unless the Court is hopeful that there is a reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly-added accused ending in conviction of the main concerned offence. At the same time, the trial Court is not always legally required to summon such accused in a routine manner, as and when any such application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is made. There is no compelling duty on Court to proceed against other persons in this relevant direction, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case Michael Machado and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another,

Meaning thereby, the trial Judge has examined the matter in right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect, vide impugned orders. Such orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 Cr.PC., unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, so, the impugned orders (Annexures P4 and P6) deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

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

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 main accused, 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, on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition only.