Mewa Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab

additional accused to face trial in case FIR No.185 dated 31.7.2007 , Sessions Case No.19 dated 17.12.2007 RBT 13 of 7.8.2009 titled as State vs. Gurpreet Singh son of Mewa Singh for offences under Section 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court has erred in summoning the petitioners to face the trial as CRM No. M-11514 of 2010 (O&M) 2 additional accused. There was no new material available before the trial Court to summon the petitioners as additional accused. The petitioners had been found innocent during investigation. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and another vs. State of Jharkhand 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 504, wherein it was held that a person cannot be summoned to face trial only on the basis of strong suspicion. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on Sarabjit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 388, wherein it was held that a person should be summoned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. only when the Court finds that evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of person sought to be summoned. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on Gurmeet Kaur vs. State of Punjab and another 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 195, wherein it was held that there was no legal requirement to wait conclusion of cross-examination of the witness before considering the aspect of summoning a person as an additional accused. What is required is the satisfaction of the Court with regard to reasonable prospect of his conviction for an offence which he appears to have committed. In the present case, the challan was presented against accused Gurpreet Singh. During trial, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners CRM No. M-11514 of 2010 (O&M) 3 as additional accused. The said application was allowed vide the impugned order. The petitioners were kept in column No.2 at the time of presentation of challan with the comment that proceedings were pending against them for declaring them proclaimed offenders. It has been held by the Apex Court in case Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 250 as under:- “A reading of the plain language of Section 319(1) CrPC 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) CrPC 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 under Section 319 CrPC cannot be quashed only on the ground that even though she was named in the CRM No. M-11514 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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 under Section 319 CrPC 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 under Section 319 CrPC 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 under Section 319 CrPC, 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 under Section 161 CrPC and by the Magistrate under Section CRM No. M-11514 of 2010 (O&M) 5 164 CrPC. 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 under Section 161 CrPC, 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” CRM No. M-11514 of 2010 (O&M) 6 “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 under Section 482 CrPC. 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 CrPC, 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 under Section 498-A IPC.” PW-1 Makhan Singh, while appearing in the witness box, had categorically deposed that his sister Sarabjit Kaur (since deceased) has been harassed and maltreated by her husband Gurpreet Singh, mother-in-law Kulwinder Kaur and father-in-law Mewa Singh. They had been demanding Rs.1,00,000/- from his sister. On 30.7.2007, his sister was sent back with her husband to the matrimonial home on the assurance that they would arrange the CRM No. M-11514 of 2010 (O&M) 7 money. When they reached the hospital, nobody from the in-laws house of his sister was present there. His sister had been administered poison and had also been given beatings by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. In view of the material available before the trial Court, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that there was sufficient material available on record which could lead to conviction of the petitioners and hence, ordered that the petitioners be summoned to face the trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners fail to advance the case of the petitioners as these are based on different facts. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. April 22, 2010 (SABINA) JUDGE