Rahul and Others vs State of Haryana and Another

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) challenging the order dated 16.9.2013 passed by the trial Court, whereby the petitioners were ordered to be summoned as additional accused on an application moved by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned summoning order was a non-speaking order. In fact, no specific role was attributed to the petitioners at the time of occurrence.

Section 319 reads as under:-

Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- 1) where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

2) Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then

a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses re-heard.

b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.

Thus, as per the above provision, Court has ample power to summon any person as an additional accused if it appears during trial that such person appears to have committed the offence.

It has been held by the Apex Court in case Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, as under:-

A reading of the plain language of Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a person not already an accused in a case can be proceeded against if in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence it appears from the evidence that such person has also committed any offence and deserves to be tried with other accused. There is nothing in the language of Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. from which it can be inferred that a person who is named in the FIR or complaint but against whom charge sheet is not filed by the police, cannot be proceeded against even though in the course of any inquiry into or trial of any offence the court finds that such person has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the other accused.

The process issued against the appellant u/s 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed only on the ground that even though she was named in the complaint, the police did not file charge-sheet against her. A person who is named in the FIR or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against u/s 319 Cr.P.C. if from the evidence collected/produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused.

The Magistrate had objectively considered the entire matter and judiciously exercised discretion u/s 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the appellant. The issue of summons against the appellant was not an abuse of the process of the court. While deciding the application filed u/s 319 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate noticed the allegations made by respondent No. 2 in the complaint that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had castigated her for insufficient dowry and subjected her to physical and mental harassment and that the sister-in-law had instigated the complainant''s husband to inflict physical torture upon her, which were supported by the statements recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and by the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. In her complaint Respondent No. 2 alleged that after one week of the marriage, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law (the appellant) told her that in the marriage, items like scooter, fridge, air conditioner, etc. were not given and the marriage party was not served well and that on the instigations of the mother-in-law and the appellant sister-in-law, the husband gave beating with the belan, and the appellant forcibly removed the rings.

The complainant clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant and made a specific mention about this in the letters written to her parents and the Magistrate opined that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the appellant. The father and mother of respondent No. 2 and four other persons, whose statements were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in harassing Respondent No. 2 and instigating the complainant''s husband to inflict torture upon her. Despite this, the police did not file charge-sheet against the appellant thinking that she had no occasion to make demand of dowry or harass Respondent No. 2 because the appellant was living with her husband. Therefore, the trial of the appellant should proceed and should be decided expeditiously.

The High Court broadly referred to the factual matrix of the case and held that the orders passed by the Magistrate and Sessions Judge did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The approach adopted by the High Court is in consonance with the settled law. Although at one stage, the Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the appellant and declared that in view of the bar of limitation contained in Section 468 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance against the appellant, the said order was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal of the revision petition. In the post remand order passed by him, the Sessions Judge independently examined the entire record and held that prima facie case was made out for initiating proceedings against the appellant herein u/s 498A IPC.

Annexure P-2 is the statement made by Karan Singh, while appearing in the witness box as PW-11. A perusal of the same reveals that the petitioners are specifically named by him. He has also stated that the petitioners and their co-accused had given slaps and kick blows to his son. They had stopped the motorcycle of his son with the help of a stick. Satyawan @ Chuha had fired at Harkesh. Thus, in the present case, the complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-11, has specifically named the petitioners and has also stated that they had given slaps and kick blows to his son. In these circumstances, no ground for quashing of impugned order is made out. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the statement of the complainant, has passed the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.