Crl. Misc. No.M-7706 of 2010 v. State of Haryana

CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner. *****

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the Order dated 25.09.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby, the petitioners have been ordered to be summoned as accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The complaint was filed by one Attar Singh son of Amar Singh resident of Village Ghasola, Police Station Dadri, District Bhiwani. On that complaint, FIR No.39 dated 10.04.2009 under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC was registered at Police Station Satnali. As per the allegations in the FIR, Attar Singh i.e. the father of the deceased gave dowry to the in-laws’ family of his daughter more than his capacity. A sum of Rs.20,000/- were given by him to his daughter to give it to Suresh, her husband in order to meet their demand. In July, 2007, Crl. Misc. No.M-7706 of 2010 2 his daughter gave birth to a son. Her in-laws expressed their unhappiness with the gifts given on the said occasion. They continued to taunt his daughter with respect to `chhu-chhak.’ Earlier about 1½ month prior to the death of his daughter, she was beaten and shunted out of the house. Accordingly, she came back to her parents' home. She returned back to the house of her in-laws only ten days before the incident. It was only on

10.04.2009 that he was informed by Suresh that his daughter was being taken to hospital as she was un-well. When he reached, she was being taken to the hospital in ambulance. However, on reaching Dadri Hospital, the doctor declared her dead. It was alleged that her husband-Suresh, her father-in-law and mother-in-law i.e. the present petitioners have killed his daughter. Thereafter, on investigation, the petitioners were declared innocent and challan was only filed against their son Suresh. Thereafter, the statement of PW-1-complainant was recorded. On the basis of the said statement, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved. The Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide Order dated 25.09.2009 summoned the petitioners while agreeing with the contention of Public Prosecutor that there was sufficient material on the file against the petitioners ie. the father- in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. While challenging the impugned Order, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that although the complainant has named the petitioners before the Court, however, he has made numerous improvements, additions and distortion, in the deposition made before the Court as compared to the statement made before the police. Any improvement itself creates a doubt in the story of prosecution. Therefore, this statement deserves to be discarded out rightly instead of relying upon for summoning the petitioners as the additional accused. Secondly, it was not appreciated that the power under Section Crl. Misc. No.M-7706 of 2010 3 319 Cr.P.C., is to be exercised very sparingly and not in ordinary routine. For summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court has to form an opinion that there is reasonable prospects of the additional accused being convicted in the case. In the present case, there is no such opinion recorded by the Court nor there is material to justify any such conclusion. Heard. The story of the prosecution put up in the FIR is supported by PW-1 Attar Singh, the father of the complainant. There are specific allegation against the petitioners that the mother-in-law had demanded a gold chain and the father-in-law demanded Rs.30,000/- and used to assault the deceased and gave her beatings. She was even shunted out from the matrimonial home at night time. The petitioners were even un- happy with the gifts given on the occasion of the birth of the male child. So much so, that one day, when the child was about six months’ old, her husband Suresh tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her while she was set ablaze by her mother-in-law. However, she was saved. She was again beaten up about 1½ month prior to her death. The complainant was duly cross-examined. In his cross- examination, he stated that he sold his buffalo to pay Rs.20,000/- to the accused-Suresh. In fact, it was also stated that his daughter had mentioned to him while being carried in the ambulance that an attempt had been made to kill her. There is no doubt with the well-settled proposition of law, in the case of Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75, wherein, the Apex Court while considering the basic requirements of Section 319 of the Code, Court said : “ The basic requirement for invoking the above Section is that it should appear to the Court Crl. Misc. No.M-7706 of 2010 4 from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, had committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertain 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 be tried along with the already arraigned accused.” In Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka reported as 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 678, the Court ruled that the power to summon an accused is an extraordinary power conferred on the Court and it should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the person other than the accused. In the present case, the petitioners were found innocent by the Investigating Agency. There is nothing on record to show as to the basis of which the Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that the present petitioners were not involved, whereas, there are specific allegations of beating, cruelty, demand of dowry against the petitioners. The said allegations in the FIR are corroborated in the statement made by the complainant before the Court. The complainant stood his ground even in the cross-examination. The only improvement referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complainant, in his statement, before the Court alleged that while he was accompanying the deceased in the ambulance, she stated that there was an attempt to kill her. The said statement cannot be held to be an improvement but is an addition to the statement already recorded by the police. It is neither contradictory to the earlier statement nor a discrepancy. It only amounts to additional facts Crl. Misc. No.M-7706 of 2010 5 given in more minute detail. The statement at this stage is convincing. The petitioners were un-happy with the dowry from the day one. The behaviour of the petitioners turned from bad to worse. However, they deteriorated on the birth of the child when the gifts given were not as per their demand. No ground to interfere with the Order dated 25.09.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Narnaul, whereby, the petitioners have been ordered to be summoned as accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., is made out. Dismissed accordingly.

09.08.2010 gurpreet (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE