Narinder Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The contour of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, in the wake of complaint of petitioner-complainant Narinder Kaur wife of Nirmal Singh (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against main accused Nirmal Singh son of Major Singh and Kulwant Singh alias Buta & Harbans Singh Tohra (respondent Nos. 2 and 3), vide FIR No. 10 dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act by the police of Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana. During the course of investigation of the case, the police found respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as innocent. However, after completion of the investigation, the prosecution submitted the final police report (challan) against main accused Nirmal Singh son of Major Singh. He was accordingly charge-sheeted for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.

The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge against main accused Nirmal Singh, examined all the witnesses. As soon as, the case was listed for recording his statement, as contemplated u/s 313 Cr.PC, in the meantime, the complainant moved an application u/s 319 Cr.PC to summon respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as additional accused to face the trial along with their other main accused for the indicated offence. The application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, by virtue of impugned order dated 22.1.2013.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-complainant has preferred the present revision petition to challenge the impugned order, 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 context.

Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that there was sufficient evidence and since the police has wrongly concluded that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as innocent, so, the trial Court committed a legal mistake in dismissing the application of complainant u/s 319 Cr.PC, lacks merit.

As is evident from the record that neither any specific role or injury was attributed to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in the FIR. Moreover, the matter was investigated by the police in pursuance of order of this Court dated 3.12.2010 (Annexure P2). The trial Judge has considered the delayed application, examined the matter in right perspective, negated the plea and dismissed the application u/s 319 Cr.PC of the complainant, by means of impugned order, which, in substance, is as under (Para 8):-

It is reiterated that, that is the only evidence upon which the application under consideration has been based by the prosecution. A perusal of the above quoted statement reveals that the occurrence took place on 2.2.2009, but, the above said allegations against the persons proposed to be summoned as accused, were made for the first time on 6.9.2011 and that too by the PW 5 in her cross examination. The above quoted statement at the most shows that the persons proposed to be summoned, were also seen near the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence took place. The above said statement also arouses some suspicion regarding the involvement of the above said persons, but, as laid down in Babu Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, , a person can be summoned to stand a joint trial by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. only if there is a prospect of conviction of the proposed person. I am of the firm opinion that the above quoted testimony of the PW 5 merely arouses some suspicion indicating that the persons referred to above might have been involved in the crime in question. But, had the prosecution itself been convinced that the persons in question had also been involved in the crime, the prosecution would not have waited so long to proceed against the persons in question. It is once again reiterated that the above quoted testimony cannot be relied upon to pass a judgment of conviction nor it arouses such a strong suspicion that the persons in question must also be tried alongwith the main accused Nirmal Singh. Hence, I hold that the application under consideration is not maintainable. The same is dismissed as such.

The learned counsel for petitioner did not point out any ground/reasons, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned order in this regard.

Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of 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 petitioner-complainant, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is 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, as there is no merit, therefore, instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such.