Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned orders, the complaint and the application moved by the petitioner. An application was moved for summoning of Rajinder, Ramesh Kumar, Rajnesh, Manoj Devi, Bimla Devi, Kartar Singh and Lali as additional accused. The allegations in the application are that specific demands were made by these persons whereas those allegations have not been considered and no reasoning has been given. Suresh (husband ), Bhati Devi (mother-in-law ) and Bane Singh (brother-in-law) are already facing trial in this case and all relations of the husband of the complainant have been involved in the case. Marriage took place in the year 1997 and for seven years there was no dispute. After a lapse of seven years, false allegations have been made. The brothers of husband of the complainant who have been residing separately have been named in the application. It has specifically been mentioned by SDJM, Mohindergarh in the order dated 22.7.2008 that all relatives of husband of the complainant have been implicated just to put pressure upon them whereas no specific role has been attributed for summoning them for offence under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge has also mentioned in the order dated 17.5.2010 that the allegations against all these persons are vague and general in nature. As per ration-card placed on record, it is clear that they have Crl.Misc. No. M- 30664 of 2010 [3] been residing separately and moreover, there is always a tendency to rope in all the family members of the accused party and this tendency has been deprecated by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others 2000 Crl.L.J. 2993, wherein it has been observed as under: “ That a tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michael Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 2000 (2) RCR (Crl.) 75 (SC) has observed as under: “ The basic requirement for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for Crl.Misc. No. M- 30664 of 2010 [4] which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well as tried along with the already arraigned accused. But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only to discretion as could be discerned from the words “the Court may proceed against such person”. The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to Crl.Misc. No. M- 30664 of 2010 [5] proceed against each other persons.” This Court in Manoj and others v. Prem Lal 2006(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 941 has observed as under: “Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and such power was not to be utilised as a substitute for second revision. Ordinarily, when a revision has been barred under Section 397(3) of the Code, the complainant or the accused cannot be allowed to take recourse to revision before the High Court under Section 397(1) of the Code, as it is prohibited under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. However, the High Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 of the Code, when there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court or when mandatory provisions of law are not complied with and when the High Court feels that the inherent jurisdiction is to be exercised to correct the mistake committed by the revisional Court.” Although the Court is not expected to throw out a case on technicalities but is expected to interfere when it appears that there is failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure. The Court is also not expected to be mere silent spectator when it is made out that there is an abuse of process or miscarriage of justice by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Crl.Misc. No. M- 30664 of 2010 [6] In the present case, allegations against the proposed accused are vague and general in nature and not specific and they are residing separately and are having separate ration card also. Moreover, the complaint was filed after seven years of marriage and prior to that, no dispute was there. All relations have falsely been implicated just to put pressure. No specific role has been attributed. For summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C as an additional accused, there has to be some evidence before the Court which would indicate the complicity of the person who is sought to be summoned or some material should have come on record which may prompt the Court to believe that the person so accused is likely to be involved and his conviction is likely to result in the eventuality of his facing the trial and the onslaught of the evidence to be adduced by the prosecution. The mere statement ipso facto cannot form the basis of summoning the person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Power under Section 482 is to be exercised sparingly, especially as second revision petition is barred under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. specifically lays down that if an application under this Section is either made to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by either of them. The present petition has been filed which is in the form of second revision petition, which has been specifically barred and in the garb of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the same cannot be exercised as the petitioner has Crl.Misc. No. M- 30664 of 2010 [7] already availed the remedy of revision against the order of Magistrate and the same has been dismissed. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction only when there is an abuse of process of Court or in the interest of justice but in the present case the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that there is an abuse of process of the Court or the same is not in the interest of justice. In the present case, even the complainant has admitted herself that she was in the house of the parents most of the time and no specific date and time was mentioned when she was being harassed with regard to demand of dowry. No ground for interference is made out. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE October 14, 2010. raghav