IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Revision No.858 of 2009 Date of decision : 29.1.2010 Major Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.J.S.Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. Sabina J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.) challenging the order of Special Court, Jalandhar while passing the order dated 24.1.2008, summoning the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no material before the trial Court to have summoned the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq (SC) 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal), 762, Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2006(2) RCR (Criminal), 359, Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2006(3) RCR (Criminal), 195 and Ganesha v. State of Haryana, 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal), 633. In the present case, as per the prosecution story, on 18.9.2003, Inspector Inderjit Verma, signaled the motor cycle driven by the petitioner to stop. When the motor cycle was stopped, the petitioner, who was driving the motor cycle disclosed his name as Major Singh whereas the person who was sitting on the pillion seat, disclosed his name as Manjit Kumar. On search of Manjit Kumar, allopathic drugs and one syringe and tablets were recovered. However, at the time of presentation of challan, petitioner was placed in column No.2. During trial, after recording of the statement of PW-3, Pardip Crl.Revision No.858 of 2009 Kumar, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner to face the trial as an accused. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. It has been held by the Apex Court in case Suman Vs. 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 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 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. 2 Crl.Revision No.858 of 2009 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 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.” Thus, in the present case during trial, it transpired that in fact, the petitioner was driving the motor cycle and the intoxicant drugs were recovered from the pillion rider. In these circumstances, the trail Court rightly held that the petitioner was liable to be summoned as an additional accused to face the trial. The cross-examination of PW-3 was complete. Hence, judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as they are on different facts. No ground for interference by this Court is called for. Dismissed. [ Sabina ] Judge 29.1.2010 sd 3