Smt. Sulochna v. Amrit Varsha Nayar & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 156(3), 319
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
Judgment
Present : Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. K.C.PURI, J. The present revision petition has been preferred by Smt. Sulochana against the order dated 15.7.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Kurukshetra vide which the criminal revision filed by the respondent/accused has been allowed and the order dated 15.6.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra on an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning additional accused has been set aside. The facts of the case are that on 4.10.2002 Salochna Devi complainant-petitioner moved a complaint in the trial Court and the said learned Court after dropping the proceedings against the present accused no. 4 to 7 sent the complaint to police station under section 156 (3) Cr.PC for Criminal Revision No.2779 of 2010 2 investigation. After investigation, the police presented challan against her husband i.e. accused Rajiv.
Mohan Lal father-in-law and Ved Rani mother- in-law were found innocent and challan was not presented against them. The challan was presented against Rajiv only. After supplying copies of challan, accused Rajiv was charge- sheeted by the learned trial Court. Complainant appeared as PW1 and after recording her statement, she moved application under section 319 Cr.P.C. against her father-in-law and mother-in-law and after considering the application by the concerned officer, the application was allowed and both i.e. the father-in- law and mother-in-law of complainant were summoned. On their appearance, charge was framed and the complainant again appeared as PW1 and after recording her examination-in-chief, an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. against respondent Nos.1 to 4 was moved. On that application, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra again summoned the father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant vide order dated 16.5.2009 instead of present accused.
Later on, an application was moved for correction of order dated 16.5.2009 and the trial Court corrected the order on the ground that name of Mohan Lal and Ved Rani have been written wrongly instead of Amrit Varsha, Ashok Kumar, Usha Narula and Dr. Dhanraj and the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra is under challenge. The complainant appeared as PW1 and stated that she was got married with accused no. 1 according to Hindu rites on 10.2.2000, at Ladwa and sufficient dowry articles were given at the time of marriage. Accused Criminal Revision No.2779 of 2010 3 were harassing her since the day of marriage and started taunting by saying that she has not brought sufficient dowry. She further stated that her husband demanded golden chain on the first day of marriage, but her parents had not given any golden chain and he thrown her from the bed. She further stated that her mother-in-law demanded colour T.V. She also deposed that her sister-in-law (Nanad) who is residing at Karnal used to visit in her laws house.
On the asking of her sister-in-law, her mother-in-law and her husband teased her. She further deposed that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and the husband of her sister-in-law also made demands. On recording examination-in-chief, an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant-State. It is evident from the file that the complainant made statement on 4.0.2002, in which she stated that she does not want to proceed with this complaint against accused no. 4 to 7 i.e. present revisionists and in view of the statement, the proceedings against accused no. 4 to 7 were dropped by the Court. The statement of complainant was also recorded after framing the charge sheet against her husband on dated 15.9.2003 and after that statement, an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. against was moved against Mohan Lal and Ved Rani, father-in-law and mother-in-law of complainant and there were no allegations against the present revisionists regarding demand of dowry and harassment.
On appearance, all the accused were again charge-sheeted and the statement of complainant was recorded, wherein she made allegation against the present accused. The First appellate Court accepted the revision and set aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court and discharged the summoned Criminal Revision No.2779 of 2010 4 accused. Feeling dissatisfied with the order dated 15.7.2010, the present revision petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. In this case Smt. Sulochna-present petitioner filed complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the police station Ladwa and case was registered against Rajiv Kumar her husband. Thereafter Mohan Lal and Ved Rani were summoned on application of the complainant filed on
Operative part
15.9.2004 as additional accused. The prayer now is to summon Ashok Kumar Nayar son of Narain Dass, Smt. Usha Narula daughter of Mohan Lal and Dr.Dhanraj Narula as additional accused in respect of FIR No.196 dated 19.10.2002 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 120-B, IPC. The learned Revisional Court in the impugned order dated 15.7.2010 has observed that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra ordinary power in the hand of the Court to summon and try a person. The additional accused can be summoned only when it appears that accused has committed the offence. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in a case Saritha vs. R.Ramachandra 2003(1) Recent Criminal Reports 481 held that reverse trend has been set up and women are increasingly abusing beneficial provisions of Section 498-A IPC by implicating members of the families of the husbands. Similar view was taken in authority Bimla and another vs. Om Parkash 2003(1) Recent Criminal Reports page 752 by this court. This Court in authority Kamaljit Singh vs. State of Punjab 2004(1) Recent Criminal Reports 321 held that sisters who were long time Criminal Revision No.2779 of 2010 5 married and living separately should not be arrayed as accused unless there are specific allegations. In the present case Smt. Usha Narula is stated to be sister-in-law whereas Dr.Dhanraj Narula is husband of Usha Narula. Ashok Kumar is stated to be brother-in-law of the complainant. There are no specific allegations against the persons sought to be summoned as additional accused. Husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law are already facing trial. So, keeping in view whole of the circumstances, no ground for interference in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is made out. compliance. Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE November 29, 2010. sv.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequently, the present petition stands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 156(3), 319; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 29 Nov 2010. The bench was K C PURI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.