Sonam vs State of Haryana and others

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.7.2018 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar vide which she had

dismissed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by complainant Sonam for summoning of respondents No.2 to 9 as additional accused to face

trial along with other accused.

Briefly stated, facts of the case as per prosecution version are that the FIR in question was got registered by complainant Sonam daughter of

Mahender Singh, resident of Ward No.6, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani by making a statement to the police stating therein that she was married with

Naresh Yadav, resident of Bhurthala Kosli and the couple was blessed with a son; that Naresh Yadav had died in a road accident, thereafter, she is

started residing with her parents at Charkhi Dadri; that a year earlier her marriage was solemnized through Ramesh son of Laxmi Narain, resident of

Khari Khummar, District Jhajjar with his cousin brother namely Ramesh s/o Ram Mehar, resident of Kheri Khummar on 18.8.2015, as such, the

complainant started residing together with Ramesh as his wife; that after some days of that marriage, her father-in-law, who was at home with no

other family member being there except the complainant, then Ram Mehar told the complainant that since first wife of Ramesh did not agree to what

he said, as such, he had killed her and if the complainant also did so, then she would face the same consequences, as such her father-in-law raped her

many times under threat stating that if she told any one, then she would face the bad consequences. According to the complainant after some time

when Ramesh son of Laxmi Narain, who was mediator came to their house then she informed him everything, then said Ramesh told her that brother

of complainant had insulted him when they were serving in the ship and for that reason, he had taken revenge; that said Ramesh showed a video film

of complainant and her husband with regard to their physical relations and tried to blackmail her. According to the complainant, her husband Ramesh

came home under influence of liquor on 3.12.2015 in the evening and he did unnatural sex with her against her wishes; that he has a beer bottle in his

hand and poured beer on her private parts doing unhuman activities; that when she opposed then he threatened to kill her; that his husband told her

that he had not solemnized marriage with her and would keep her as a concubine; that on 4.12.2015 sisters of Ramesh, husband of complainant,

namely, Manju, Parmila and Annu along with their husbands Krishan, Shilu and Rajender came there. According to the complainant, she told the entire

story to them and showed bed room to them as well as bed-sheet, which was blood stained; that Rajender and Vidhyawati, mother-in-law of the

complainant removed all those clothes and burnt them, whereas Ramesh husband of the complainant threw the beer bottle; that after some time

Rajender showed the complainant a video of complainant and her husband maintaining physical relations; that Rajender threatened the complainant

that she better live in this house silently otherwise she would be killed like first wife and that video would be shown to all. According to the

complainant, she returned to her parental house but did not disclose anything to them due to fear; that on 13.3.2016, her husband Ramesh and his

cousin brother Ramesh along with friend Pardeep son of Om Parkash came there while they were under the influence of liquor; that they tried to

blackmail her family after showing them video and tried to take her back to the matrimonial home. According to the complainant, she apprehends

danger to her life.

On registration of the formal FIR, the matter was investigated. However, only three persons namely Ramesh son of Ram Mehar, Ram Mehar son of

Kanhaiya Lal and Vidhyawati wife of Ram Mehar were challaned, whereas names of other remaining eight accused were kept in column No.2 of the

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

During the trial against the accused challaned, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed to summon the remaining persons named in the FIR

as additional accused, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide the impugned order leaving the complainant aggrieved and she has filed the present

revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner besides going through the record.

The impugned order is quite detailed one in which facts of the case are mentioned. The legal parameters given in landmark judgment on the subject by

Hon'ble Supreme Court, i.e. Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab and others, 2014(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 623 have been discussed while coming to

the conclusion that the evidence available on record does not warrant summoning of additional accused. The operative part of the order runs as

follows:

When facts of the present case are examined in the light of the principles laid down in Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab’s case (supra), it

becomes clear that the evidence led by the prosecution in the shape of sworn deposition of PW1 complainant falls short of the standard of making out

a case for summoning of additional accused sought to be summoned. Needless to say that the complainant moved the complaint Ex.PW1/A to the

police and, thereafter, due investigation was carried out and proposed accused Ramesh son of Laxmi Narain, Manju, Promila and Anju daughters of

Ramehar, Krishan son of Hawa Singh, Sheelu son of Baru Ram, Rajender son of Hawa Singh and Pardeep son of Om Parkash were found innocent.

During the course of trial, the complainant Sonam examined herself as PW1 and reiterated her allegations as set out in the complaint and no further

substantive evidence has been brought on record to prima facie prove the allegations levelled against the proposed accused Ramesh son of Laxmi

Narain, Manju, Promila and Anju daughters of Ramehar, Krishan son of Hawa Singh, Sheelu son of Baru Ram, Rajender son of Hawa Singh and

Pardeep son of Om Parkash. Moreover, the proposed persons were alleged to have been residing separately and they were the sisters-in-laws, the

mediator of marriage and the relative of accused already facing trial and now-a-days there is a tendency to rope the entire family as well as the

relatives of accused in such like cases. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and observation, it is held that no ground is made out to allow

the application moved by the complainant for summoning proposed accused Ramesh son of Laxmi Narain, Manju, Promila and Anju daughters of

Ramehar, Krishan son of Hawa Singh, Sheelu son of Baru Ram, Rajender son of Hawa Singh and Pardeep son of Om Parkash as an additional

accused in the present case. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Now remaining PWs be summoned for 31.7.2018

and 03.08.2018 accordingly.

The law is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is quite limited. This Court is to interfere only if there is an illegality or infirmity

apparent on the face of the judgment/order passed by a Court below or the same is perverse and not otherwise.

In the present case, I do not find any such illegality or infirmity with the impugned order much less apparent on the face of it. The order is certainly not

in violation of settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. I do not see any reason to upset the impugned order.

Therefore, criminal revision petition challenging that order cannot survive and is dismissed accordingly.