The High Court
Case Details
CRR No.333 of 202 of 2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB ARH(cid:1) CHANDIGARH NJAB AND HARYANA AT No.333 of 2024 (O&M) CRR No. Reserved Pronounc erved on:22.01.2025 nounced on:04.02.2025 201 (cid:1) Heera Devi (cid:1) State of Haryana ryana and others Versus ... Petitioner s(cid:1) ... Respondents CORAM : HON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT AMIT KUMAR Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate Present: Mr. Mr. Rahul Gugnani, Advocate Mr. Mr. Deepak Nagar, Advocate Mr. for the petitioner. for t Ms. Priyanka Sadar, AAG, Haryana Ms. ryana. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate Mr. e and Mr. Manu Sachdeva, Advocate and Mr. Mr. Mr. Shridhar Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3. for r **** *** (cid:1) NAMIT KUMA UMAR, J. 1. The instant criminal revision petition The titioner petition has been filed by the petitioner (complainant) ch nt) challenging the impugned order by the order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the learned Addition ditional Sessions Judge, Palwal vide eferred l vide which the application preferred by her under Sec er Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summo and 3 summoning of respondents No.2 and 3 (proposed accuse accused) as additional accused to fa ccused to face trial along with the accused already facing tri ing trial, has been dismissed. 2. In brief, the facts are that deceased In b er was ceased-daughter of the petitioner was married with one ith one Sahil son of respondents No.2 out of No.2 and 3 on 08.03.2019 and out of the said wedlock edlock, one girl child was born on 07 on 07.03.2020. After the birth of gir of girl
Facts
PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.02.05 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRR No.333 of 202 of 2024 (O&M) -2- child, in-laws of ws of the deceased and various othe rassing s other relatives had started harassing her by raising de ing demand of dowry. The father-in anded in-law of the deceased demanded Rs.10 lakhs on 1 s on 10.04.2022. Even in the year 2 ceased year 2021, pregnancy of the deceased was got terminat rminated, the fact which she brought t of her ught to the knowledge of sister of her mother namely B ely Bobby and one Chanchal. She w laws She was being taunted by her in-laws for not giving bir ing birth to a male child. On 10.06.20 d gone 2022, when the deceased had gone to college, she w she was mentally tortured by raising d ccused ising demand of dowry by the accused persons. The de he deceased could not cope with the ith the harassment meted out to her a her at the hands of accu of accused persons and she committed nt of a mitted suicide by jumping in front of a moving train. Th in. The accused persons had cremated mated her on 11.06.2022. 3. On the complaint dated 14.06.2022 On t ther of .2022 of the petitioner (i.e. mother of the deceased), a , an FIR was registered against luding gainst the accused persons including husband, father father-in-law and mother-in-law of r, the aw of the deceased, however, the investigating age ng agency after conducting an inves report investigation, submitted final report under Section 17 ion 173 Cr.P.C. against the husband l other sband only namely Sahil and all other accused persons rsons were declared innocent. The st , being The statement of the petitioner, being complainant, wa nt, was recorded as PW-1 in which sh of the hich she reiterated the contents of the complaint on the on the basis of which FIR in questio iled an question was registered. She filed an application unde under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summ 3 i.e. summon respondents No.2 and 3 i.e father-in-law and w and mother-in-law of the decease to face eceased as additional accused to face trial, which stoo h stood dismissed by the learned Ad ed Additional Sessions Judge, Palwa Palwal vide impugned gned order dated 09.11.2023, which in the which is subject of challenge in the instant criminal r inal revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Lear tioner submitted that the learned tria d trial Court has gravely gravely erred in holding that there wer re were only vague allegations agains against PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.02.05 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRR No.333 of 202 of 2024 (O&M) -3- respondents No.2 ts No.2 and 3 and except one alleged i wry of leged incident of demanding dowry of Rs.10 lakhs on 1 on 10.04.2022 i.e. two months prior , there s prior to the alleged occurrence, there is no other incid r incident mentioned neither in the co titioner the complaint made by the petitioner nor in her statem statement recorded before it and th ce was and therefore, no fresh evidence was brought before t fore the Court to justify summoning d 3 as oning of respondents No.2 and 3 as additional accuse accused when they have already been police y been declared innocent in the police investigation. In on. In fact, the allegations levelled in titioner lled in the complaint by the petitioner are specific, wh c, which have been corroborated by corded ted by her in her statement recorded before the learne learned trial Court as PW-1. He argu e argued that it is undisputed fact tha ct that father-in-law (re w (respondent No.2) and mother-in ere in in-law (respondent No.3) were in joint holding wit ng with their son and the deceased/da as the /daughter-in-law and as far as the allegations are c are concerned, they are on similar f of the ilar footing with the husband of the deceased and on and once a prima facie case has be usband has been found against the husband whereupon chall challan has been presented against h o been ainst him and charges have also been framed, responde spondents No.2 and 3 ought to have trial as have been summoned to face trial as additional accuse accused. In support of his submissio mission, he relied upon the judgmen gment rendered by a Co y a Coordinate Bench of this Court i yana ourt in Sunita Vs. State of Haryana and another 202 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal) 273 wh passed wherein the impugned order passed by the Court belo rt below dismissing the application mo herein, ion moved by the complainant therein seeking summon mmoning of mother-in-law of the dec ed was he deceased as additional accused was set aside, though hough she was put in column No.2 by while o.2 by the investigating agency while submitting final r r.P.C. final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appeari Per and 3 ppearing for respondents No.2 and 3 supported the im the impugned order dated 09.11.2023 idence .2023 by stating that no fresh evidence was brought dur ht during the course of trial to jus oposed o justify the summoning of proposed PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.02.05 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRR No.333 of 202 of 2024 (O&M) -4- accused-responde spondents No.2 and 3 to face trial as ad further al as additional accused. It was further argued that the i t the investigating agency after cond igation r conducting a thorough investigation declared them in hem innocent and put them in colum ed for column No.2, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the i f the instant revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for th I ha ed the for the parties and have perused the paper book as we as well as the case law cited. 7. While exercising the power under S Whi nder Sections 319 Cr.P.C., the test tha est that has to be applied pplied, as laid down by the Hon’ble Su ingh ’ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punj Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, is one whi
Legal Reasoning
case ne which is more than prima facie case as exercised at th d at the time of framing of charge, but e, but short of satisfaction to an exten extent that the evidence idence, if goes unrebutted, would lead d lead to conviction. Admittedly, fina y, final report under Sec er Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been prese of the presented against the husband of the deceased on the s n the same set of allegations as have b ndents have been levelled against respondents No.2 and 3 and 3 and charges have also been frame framed. It is nowhere the case tha that respondents No.2 ts No.2 and 3 were living separately eased- arately from their son and deceased daughter-in-law. law. Moreover, even though a pers by the a person is named in the FIR by the complainant but nt but the police, after investigation rticular ation finds no role of that particular person and files c files charge-sheet without implicating erless icating him, the Court is not powerless in summoning th ing that particular person, if it finds th uld be inds that a particular person should be summoned as acc as accused, at the stage of summonin Court moning. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Mohammed med Ispahani Vs. Yogendra Chand as held handak (2017) 16 SCC 226 has held as under:- PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.02.05 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh “3 “34. It needs to be highlighted tha FIR by the complainant, but police, FIR of of that particular person and f impl implicating him, the Court is not summoning, if the trial Court finds sum be summoned as accused, even tho be s that when a person is named in the n the role lice, after investigation, finds no role thout nd files the charge-sheet withou ge of not powerless, and at the stage o ould inds that a particular person should arge- n though not named in the charge CRR No.333 of 202 of 2024 (O&M) -5- shee sheet, it can do so. At that stage, ch also to file a protest petition urging also other persons as well who were nam othe in th in the charge-sheet. Once that stage pow powerless by virtue of Section 319 gets triggered when during the trial gets the proposed accused.” the p inant e, chance is given to the complainan mon ging upon the trial Court to summon cated named in the FIR but not implicated ll not stage has gone, the Court is still no 319 Cr.P.C. However, this section ction ainst ial, some evidence surfaces agains 8. Furthermore, the petitioner has r Furt of the has reiterated the contents of the complaint, whic which resulted into registration in her ation of FIR in question, in her examination-in- -chief before the learned trial Co not be rial Court, therefore, it would not be proper for the lea the learned trial Court to reject the ap ing of the application seeking summoning of respondents No.2 ts No.2 and 3 as additional accused. In order, sed. In para 12 of the impugned order the learned trial trial Court observed that the allegat ccused llegation levelled against the accused persons that the at they were not happy with the bir facie the birth of girl child is prima facie incorrect, as the as the photographs brought on record reveals ecord by the proposed accused reveals that the deceased ceased and the accused facing trial we arried rial were leading a very happy married life and that the at the deceased was having a good re of the ood relation. The said finding of the learned trial Cou al Court is self-contradictory, as after report after police investigation, final report under Section 17 ion 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed agains s have against the husband and charges have also been framed framed. Moreover, it is a trite law th ve into law that a Court should not delve into the merits of evi of evidence and evaluate credibility at the ibility or reliability of evidence at the stage of summon ummoning and the focus at this stag re is a s stage is only on whether there is a prima facie case case made out against the propose on the roposed accused or not, based on the initial informatio rmation. When the evidence of the co worthy the complainant is found to be worthy of acceptance the nce then the satisfaction of the investi ters, as investigating officer hardly matters, as if the satisfaction faction of the investigating officer inative is to be treated as determinative then the purpose rpose of Section 319 would be frustra thore frustrated (see Omi @ Omkar Rathore PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.02.05 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRR No.333 of 202 of 2024 (O&M) -6- and another Vs r Vs. The State of Madhya Prades eave radesh and another, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No l.) No.17781 of 2024, decided on 03. n 03.01.2025). 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and In v ugned cts and circumstances, the impugned order passed date ed dated 09.11.2023 passed by the lea de and the learned trial Court is set aside and the instant crimin criminal revision petition is allowed. s No.2 lowed. Resultantly, respondents No.2 and 3 are order ordered to be summoned as additi other itional accused along with other accused to face tr face trial. 10. However, nothing observed hereina How be an ereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opi of opinion on merits of the case. 11. Pending application, if any, also stan Pend
Decision
so stands disposed of. (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE February 04, 20 Pankaj* 2025 ned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes Yes PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.02.05 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh