Neeru Kumari vs State of Punjab

Ritu Bahri, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the summoning orders dated 5.7.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot on an application made u/s 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

FIR No. 21 dated 12.3.2012 under Sections 307, 326, 341, 148, 149 IPC was registered against the accused Sohan Lal, Rampal along with Madan Lal, Neeru Kumari and Veena Kumari. Madan Lal, Neeru Kumari and Veena Kumari were kept in column no. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.3.2012 at about 8:30 PM, Mintu Saini, complainant along with his uncle Surjeet Singh was coming on motorcycle bearing No. PB-35-K-5837 from Batth

Sahib to Village Jaswali and when they reached near the shop of petitioner no. 3-Dr. Madan Lal, Sohan Lal and Rampal gave them signal to stop. But due to fear they ran away from the spot on the motorcycle. A little ahead, petitioners no. 1 & 2, Neeru Kumari and Veena Kumari suddenly came in front of the motrocycle and at that time, Madan Lal, Sohan Lal and Rampal reached the spot. Sohan Lal armed with sword gave a blow on the neck of Minut Saini respondent no. 2-complainant, who raised his hand to save himself, which hit on his under shoulder and he fell down from the motorcycle and also gave injuries to Surjeet Singh. Thereafter, one person Hardeep Singh came there and took them to Chauhan Hospital, Pathankot. Thereafter, complainant was referred to Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar. On an enquiry conducted by the DSP, Sh. Prabhjot Singh Virk and after recording the statements of the three persons, petitioners were found innocent. In the enquiry report, it was observed by the DSP that there was a love affair between respondent no. 2-complainant, Mintu Saini and Monika daughter of Sohan Lal. Mintu Saini along with Surjeet Singh used to tease Monika and thereafter Mintu Saini had taken poison. Hence the respondent was carrying a grudge against the family members of Monica and has named them in the FIR. That is why they were kept in column no. 2 in the challan (Annexure P-1). The statement of the complainant was recorded by the trial Court on 31.5.2013 (Annexure P-2) in which he reiterated the sequence of events as stated in the FIR. Based on the statement Annexure P-2, the application made u/s 319 by the respondent (Annexure P-3) has been allowed.

Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the only role attributed to the petitioners no. 1 & 2 is that they suddenly came in front of the motorcycle which was being driven by Mintu Saini. Thereafter Madan Lal had raised Lalkara and because of their act, the motorcycle was stopped by the complainant and they were inflicted grievous injuries by Sohan Lal and Ram Pal which were declared dangerous to life by the Doctor. She has referred to a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Hukam Chand and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, to contend that in the FIR, no role or injury has been attributed to the three petitioners hence by merely reiterating the allegations of the FIR while appearing as PW-1, the petitioners cannot be summoned to face a trial. Moreover, since the complainant was having a love affair with the daughter of Sohan Lal, petitioner no. 2, Veena Kumari being the mother of the girl and petitioner no. 1, Neeru Kumari being wife of Ram Pal, the second accused have just been roped in as complainant was nursing a grudge against them.

Petitioner no. 3, Dr. Madan Lal has only been attributed a lalkara. After conducting the necessary investigation, all the three petitioners were kept in column no. 2 as they had no role to play in the incident where injuries were inflicted by Sohan Lal and Ram Pal. In the cross-examination of Mintu Saini, he admits that Ram Pal and Sohan Lal had shown their annoyance to his parents and elders that he had been teasing the daughter of Sohan Lal. It was admitted by the complainant in the cross-examination that a report had been made by him to the police station about two years back that he had been administered pesticides by Ram Pal, Sohan Lal and Hari Chand but a compromise was effected.

Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand has referred to a recent judgment given by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others etc. etc., where the entire law with regard to the exercise of power of summoning of an accused u/s 319 has been discussed and it has been held that on the basis of the material made available by the police in challan after the trial has commenced the accused can be summoned to face a trial u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the trial records a satisfaction and the evidence recorded in the trial court corroborates the enquiries conducted. The provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been examined in this case and it was held that the powers u/s 319 can be exercised against a person not subjected to investigation or a person placed in column no. 2 of the chargesheet and against whom cognizance has not been taken or a person who has been discharged. For the purpose of deciding the application u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the trial commences the Court has to examine the enquiries conducted and the materials giving before the Court in the course of such enquiries. Such material if corroborates the evidence recorded in the Court after the trial commences an accused who has been shown in column no. 2 of the chargesheet can be summoned to face a trial. The word evidence'' used u/s 319 Cr. P.C. has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial. The evidence includes all the materials collected from the pre trial stage. The Supreme Court has further clarified that u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person against whom material is disclosed the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination. While explaining Section 319 Sub clause 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it has been observed that the difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial. Therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different. No doubt in the present case all the three petitioners were named in the FIR. The enquiry was conducted by the DSP (R-1) Sh. Prabhjot Singh Virk. He recorded the statements of the villagers of the village Jaswal Lahri and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were innocent and have been falsely implicated in the FIR. They were not present at the spot. Petitioners no. 1 & 2

were present at their home at the time of the occurrence and petitioner no. 3 was present in the clinic. In the enquiry, it was further stated that there was a love affair between Mintu Saini and Monica. Complainant along with Surjeet Singh was in the habit of teasing Monika. This fact has been admitted by Mintu while appearing as PW-1. He has also admitted in cross-examination that about two years back he had made report to the police that Sohan Lal, Ram Pal had administered pesticides to him. However, a compromise was effected and he had agreed not to tease his daughter Monica. Faced with the above said enquiry report, this Court is required to see whether as per the enquiry conducted by the DSP, there was some material or evidence which could connect all the three petitioners with the crime or the allegations in the FIR. It is not the case of the complainant in the FIR that any of the three petitions had participated and inflicted any injury. Moreover, it is not the case of the complainant that it was a pre planned attack. Both the families were nursing a grudge against each other and on 10.3.2012, the complainant along with Surjeet Singh came to Village Jaswali and near the shop of petitioner no. 3, Sohan Lal and Ram Pal inflicted injuries on his person with a sword. Another important fact in the present case is that the complainant-respondent no. 2 is a resident of Village Chack Dhariwal, District Pathankot and petitioner no. 3 is a resident of Village Badolpur, District Pathankot. It is not the case of the complainant that he everyday visits Village Jaswali. On the fateful day on 10.3.2012 when he came to the village on a shop he was attacked by Sohan Lal and Ram Pal. In this case after going through the statement made by PW-1 and in the investigation carried out by the Police as per Annexure P-1, Ram Pal and Sohan Lal were arrested and weapons used at the time of the crime were got recovered and the challan was presented. After recording the necessary statements of the Villagers, all the three petitioners were kept in column no. 2. In the FIR, it has also been stated that Hardeep Singh who had taken the injured to the hospital has witnessed the entire occurrence. His statement has not been so recorded by the trial Court where he could state about the presence of all the three petitioners. Moreover, after recording the statements of the villagers, petitioners were kept in column no. 2 as they were not found present at the time of the incident. As per the report of the DSP, the petitioners were innocent and they should be discharged and recommended to obliterate Section 148, 149 IPC in this case Following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra), no evidence was available after recording the statement of PW-1, Mintu Saini that all the three petitioners were present and had participated while Sohan Lal and Ram Pal were inflicting injuries on Mintu Saini and Surjeet Singh. It is mere reiterating the allegations in the FIR. Moreover in cross-examination the complainant has also admitted that about two years back on account of his relationship with the daughter of Sohan Lal, an attempt was made by Sohan Lal and Ram Pal to give pesticides to him and a report in this regard has been made by the police. There was no sufficient evidence in the enquiry conducted by the DSP before the trial Court which corroborates with the evidence given by Mintu Saini while appearing as PW-1 which would lead to the satisfaction that all the three petitioners were present and had connived with Sohan Lal and Ram Pal to inflict injuries on respondent no. 2.

Keeping in view the above facts, the order dated Annexure P-5 is set aside and the present petition is allowed.