CRR No.956 of 2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.956 of 2013 Date of Decision: 25.11.2014 [ENTITY] Petitioner Versus [ENTITY] & Ors. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.[ENTITY], AAG Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3. [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
The compendium of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, in the wake of statement of petitioner-complainant [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] (for brevity "the complainant"), a criminal case was registered against accused [ENTITY] (husband), [ENTITY] (mother-in-law), [ENTITY] (father-in-law) and [ENTITY] (brother-in-law) of [ENTITY], daughter of the complainant, vide FIR No.128 dated 27.7.2012 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] IPC by the police of Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
2. During the course of investigation of the case, respondents Nos.2 and 3 were found innocent by the investigating agency. However, after completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) (Annexure P3) against main accused [ENTITY] (husband) and [ENTITY] (mother-in-law). They were accordingly charge sheeted for the commission of pointed offences and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.
3. [ENTITY], the prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, examined [ENTITY] (complainant) as PW1, where he has also named respondent Nos.2 and 3 as accused. Consequently, the application u/[SECTION] [ACT] was filed on behalf of prosecution to summon them as additional accused to face the trial along with their other main co- accused for the indicated offences.
4. The trial Court dismissed the application u/[SECTION] [ACT], by virtue of impugned order dated 23.2.2013.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-complainant preferred the present revision petition to challenge the impugned order, invoking the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT].
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this respect.
7. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that since there was sufficient evidence on record against the additional accused, so, the trial Court committed a legal mistake in dismissing the application of prosecution u/[SECTION] [ACT], lacks merit.
8. As is evidence from the record that, after taking into consideration the inherent improbabilities and contradictions in the evidence, the trial court dismissed the application u/[SECTION] [ACT], by means of impugned order dated 23.2.2013, which, in substance, is as under:-
"After giving my anxious thoughts to the rival contentions and going through the record of the case, I am of the considered view that no ground for summoning [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] as an additional accused is made out. In his examination in chief, PW1 [ENTITY] has stated that mother-in-law of his daughter had started demanding money for setting accused [ENTITY] in the business. He has stated that on one occasion he had given Rs.35000/- to the father of the accused [ENTITY]. He has stated that in-laws of his daughter used to give beatings to her and turn her out of the house. He has also stated that after attending Ring Ceremony of his younger daughter accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] quarreled with [ENTITY] that her father had not given anything at the time of her engagement. He has stated that his daughter [ENTITY] had informed on 23.7.2012 that accused have raised a demand of Rs.50,000/- and her father in law had raised the said demand. Her brother in law had also joined them in raising the said demand.
The statement made by the complainant to the police shows that he had stated that on 23.a7.2012 his daughter had told him that accused [ENTITY] has raised a demand of Rs.50,000/-. In the statement made before the Court PW1 [ENTITY] has made material improvements in the statement made to the police he has no where mentioned that he has given the amount of Rs.35000/- to the father of the accused [ENTITY]. During his cross examination it has come on record that accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] had started living separately in a rented accommodation. No doubt, PW1 [ENTITY] has stated that in fact rented accommodation was being used by his daughter only for giving tuition in the said room but he has admitted that house hold articles including almirah, suit case, sewing machine, mattresses, television, refrigerator, kitchen, utensils and sofa set were also recovered from the said accommodation. The allegations against [ENTITY] is also that he had quarreled with his daughter after the Ring Ceremony of his younger daughter on 17.7.2012. However, the said isolated incident cannot show that [ENTITY] abetted the deceased to commit suicide."
9. Therefore, to me, the trial Court has rightly considered the matter in this relevant connection. Not only that, there is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. It is not a matter of dispute that the trial has already been concluded in this case, by way of judgment dated 21.8.2013 by the trial Court.
10. As indicated here-in-above, the application filed by the prosecution u/[SECTION] [ACT], was dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order. That means, no order to summon respondent Nos.2 and 3 as additional accused was ever passed by the trial Court before conclusion of the trial of main case. In that eventuality, the instant revision petition becomes infructuous, in view of ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Hardeep Singh v. [ENTITY] & Ors. JT 2014(1) SC 412 and this Court in cases [PRECEDENT], Tarsem Singh v. [ENTITY] and others 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 585 and [PRECEDENT], wherein, having examined the essential ingredients of [SECTION] [ACT], it was ruled that no person can legally be summoned as additional accused to face the trial alongwith their other co-accused under this section after the conclusion of the trial of main case. Thus, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
11. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective, recorded the cogent grounds and correctly did not summon the respondents Nos.2 and 3 as additional accused to face the trial along with their other co-accused. The learned counsel for petitioner did not point out any reason, muchless cogent, to interfere in the impugned order in this regard. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction under [SECTION] [ACT], unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner- complainant, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such.
25.11.2014 ([ENTITY]) AS Judge