High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152202 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28138 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 20.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Farrukhabad in S.T. No. 1277
Legal Reasoning
of 2022, arising out of case crime no. 34 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad, whereby the application filed by applicant/informant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has been rejected.
Legal Reasoning
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. Applicant is informant of the aforesaid case and he has lodged the first information report of this case under Sections 498- A, 304-B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act against opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and Bhupendra Singh and Tejram. All the accused persons are members of the same family and the allegations of dowry demand and harassment of deceased were levelled against all the accused persons but during investigation, police have exonerated opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and charge-sheet was submitted only against accused Bhupendra Singh and Tejram, who are husband and father-in-law of deceased. During trial of the said accused persons, namely, Bhupendra Singh and Tejram, informant has moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 as accused but the said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 20.04.2024 in an arbitrary manner without considering the evidence and position of law in correct perspective. Learned counsel has referred statements of PW-1 Ramu (applicant) and PW-2 Deepak and submitted that both the witnesses have made similar allegations against all the accused persons, including opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and thus, a case for summoning of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 is made out. The observation of the Investigating Officer during investigation that opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were residing separately is false. All the accused persons were residing together. It was submitted that in view of the
Decision
aforesaid facts, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned AGA has submitted that there is evidence that all the accused persons, including opposite party nos. 2 to 5, were living together and that a case for summoning of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 is made out. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. By the impugned order, the application filed by informant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Before considering the matter on merits, it would be apt to refer the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. which read as under:- "319. 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. ...... (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the 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."By reading of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the trial court at any stage during trial to summon any person as an accused to face the trial if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused." 7. In case of Shiv Prakash Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2019) 7 SCC 806, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered several earlier judgements and it was held as under:- "9. The standard of proof employed for summoning a person as an accused person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is higher than the standard of proof employed for framing a charge against the accused person. The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly. As held in Kailash v. State of Rajasthan and another (2008) 14 SCC 51, "the power of summoning an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly. The key words in Section are "it appears from the evidence "....." any person "....." has committed any offence". It is not, therefore, that merely because some witnesses have mentioned the name of such person or that there is some material against that person, the discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be used by the court." 10. As held by the Constitution Bench in para (105) in Hardeep Singh, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and is to be exercised sparingly which reads as under:- "105. Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if "it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence" is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not "for which such person could be convicted." There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused." 11. The above view was followed in Brijendra Singh as under:- "13. In order to answer the question, some of the principles enunciated in Hardeep Singh case (2014) 3 SCC 92 may be recapitulated: .... However, since it is a discretionary power given to the court under Section 319 CrPC and is also an extraordinary one, same has to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. The degree of satisfaction is more than the degree which is warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge- sheet was filed. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised. It is not to be exercised in a casual or a cavalier manner. The prima facie opinion which is to be formed requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity." 8. Keeping in view the above-cited law, in the instant matter it appears from record that the marriage of deceased with accused Bhupendra Singh has taken place about three years prior to the incident. It appears that on 22.01.2022 the deceased has suffered death other than under normal circumstances. The first information report was lodged on 25.01.2022. After investigation, police have submitted charge-sheet against accused Bhupendra Singh, who is husband of deceased, and Tejram, who is father-in-law of deceased. The opposite party nos. 2 to 5, namely, Bhure, Jogendra, Soni and Khushbu are brothers-in-law (Jeth) and sisters-in-law (Jethani) of deceased. During investigation, opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were exonerated by the police. It was observed by the trial court that opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were residing separately. It is apparent from record that only general allegations of dowry demand and harassment of deceased have been levelled against all the accused persons. Being brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law of deceased, opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were not going to be benefited by fulfillment of any dowry demand. The trial court has considered entire facts and evidence in correct perspective and rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by a reasoned order dated 20.04.2024. Considering aforesaid position of law and facts of the matter, it cannot be said that the impugned order is suffering from any such material illegality or perversity so as to require any interference by this Court. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed. 9. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 18.9.2024 Anand