Verender Singh v. State of Haryana

FIR No. 179/07 registered at Police Station Hathin under Sections 307, 325, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves dismissal. It has been held by the Apex Court in case Suman Vs. Crl. Rev. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) 2 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 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 Crl. Rev. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) 3 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 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 Crl.

Rev. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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”

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 Crl. Rev. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) 5 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.

Section 319 reads as under:- “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.

2) Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. Crl. Rev. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) 6 3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, 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 afresh, and 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.” Thus, as per Section 319 Cr.P.C., whenever during the course of trial, it appears from the evidence that any person not being accused had committed the offence for which he could be tried together with the accused facing the trial, the Court may proceed to summon such person to face the trial.

In the present case, the petitioner was kept in column No.2 at the time of presentation of challan as he was found innocent during inquiry. However, during trial, it has transpired that the petitioner had also participated in the alleged occurrence. PW-2 Virender has categorically deposed that the petitioner had given three kulhari blows on the right thigh and hip of injured Mahi Pal. Crl. Rev. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) 7 Injured Mahi Pal himself appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and has deposed that the petitioner had inflicted injuries on his right thigh and hip with a kulhari. Thus there was sufficient evidence during trial, which required that the petitioner be also summoned to face the trial along with the accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order has held that the injuries attributed to the petitioner were also mentioned in the medico legal report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not controverted the said finding. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. August 20, 2010 SABINA) JUDGE