Crl. Revision No. 1318 of 2010 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1318 of 2010 Dated: July 14, 2010 Smt. Krishna and others ---Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Shalini Attri, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No. 1 Mr. Deepak Vaswan, Advocate, for Mr. K.K.Pahuja, Advocate for respondent No. 2 *** GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This revision petition has been preferred by petitioners, Smt. Krishna, Chander Shekhar, Shyam Babu, Smt. Veenu and Shailender, who are related to Sachin Gupta, husband of respondent No. 2/complainant- Teena Gupta, against order dated 28.4.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Crl. Revision No. 1318 of 2010 {2} Judge, Rewari, vide which he accepted the revision petition preferred by Teena Gupta, complainant-respondent No. 2 filed against the order dated 7.10.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari, dismissing the application filed by the complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for summoning them as additional accused to stand their trial along with Sachin Gupta for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the marriage of the complainant was performed with Sachin Gupta on 16.11.2005. Chander Shekhar and Krishna are his parents. Veenu is his sister, Shailender is the husband of that sister and Shayam Babu is the brother of his father. The complainant got lodged FIR No. 236 dated 10.8.2007 against them for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 IPC in Police Station, Model Town, Rewari. She contended therein that soon after the marriage, her husband and his parents started maltreating and taunting her on the ground that her parents had not given the dowry as per their status, though they spent Rs. 30 lakhs on this marriage. She was insulted by her husband and his relations a number of times and was also given beatings when she was pregnant. A demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- was raised one day before the marriage and at that time her father had shown his inability to pay that amount in cash. However, after one day of the marriage, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was given in cash and another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given by way of fixed deposit in the Bank. While she was pregnant, she was administered some tablets for her abortion by her husband. Beatings were also given by Shyam Babu and Crl. Revision No. 1318 of 2010 {3} parents of the husband. It was only on the persuasion made by her father that she was medically examined and was given medical treatment. On 25.3.2006, she came back to Rewari. She was subjected to mental cruelty by Shailender and Veenu. She was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 30 lacs in case she wanted to stay in the matrimonial home peacefully. She was brought back from Rewari to Madurai by one of the members of the family of her husband and the said demand was again raised. She gave birth to a male child on 9.8.2006 and in connection therewith, her parents visited her on 4.9.2006 and gave gold jewellery and Rs. 1,11,000/- in cash. Her husband and other relations were not satisfied with that gold and money and she was not allowed to co-habit with her husband and was living as a slave in their house, where no proper food was given to her. On 27.9.2007, Krishna, Sachin and Veenu administered poison to her, upon which her condition deteriorated and she was referred to a private doctor, who was having friendly relations with the accused. She also stayed with her husband at Delhi in a rented house where she was subjected to cruelty by him on the ground that she should bring money from her parents for running the business. Her husband having conspired with the other accused started raising the demand of Rs. 30,00,000/- and she informed her parents about that harassment through letter dated 28.3.2007. Ultimately, their respective family members met but no settlement could be arrived at and she lodged the present FIR. After the investigation, only husband of the complainant was challaned, whereas the petitioners were not challaned on the ground that they were found to be innocent during the investigation. Sachin Gupta is being tried for the offences mentioned in the FIR. The charge was framed against him. After the statement of the Crl. Revision No. 1318 of 2010 {4} complainant was recorded by the trial court an application was moved under Section 319 of the Code by the complainant for summoning the petitioners as additional accused. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate did not find any merit in that application and dismissed the same, vide order dated 7.10.2009. The complainant preferred the above said revision against that order, which was accepted and the petitioners were summoned to stand their trial along with the already arrayed accused. Notice of the revision petition was given to the respondents. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there are no specific allegations made against the petitioners and there are only vague allegations. The complainant while making her statement before the trial court has only reiterated the facts already disclosed by her in the FIR and as such the same cannot be termed as evidence within the meaning of Section 319 of the Code so as to justify the summoning of the petitioners as additional accused. He further submitted that the evidence, so produced, should be of such standard that the conviction of the petitioners can be based on the same. No such finding was recorded by Additional Sessions Judge and as such that order cannot be sustained. He also tried to contend that the sister of the husband; namely, Veenu and her husband-Shailender had been living at a different place and they have been roped in only because of their relationship and otherwise nothing has been said by the complainant in her statement which may afford a ground for summoning them as additional accused. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on Sarabjit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another 2009(3)RCR(Criminal) 388, Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh and another vs. Crl. Revision No. 1318 of 2010 {5} State of Jharkhand 2009(1) RCR(Criminal) 504, Usha Mehta vs. State of Punjab and another 2009(2)RCR(Criminal) 220, Hukam Chand and another vs. State of Haryana and another 2007(3)RCR(Criminal) 141, Archana Kumar vs. Meenakshi Kaushik and others 2007(1)RCR (Criminal) 563. On the other hand, it has been submitted by counsel for the respondents that the statement made by the complainant in the Court amounts to evidence within the meaning of Section 319 of the Code and from that statement it can easily be made out that the petitioners committed the offences under Section 498-A and 506 IPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not commit any illegality while summoning them as additional accused. The Court is only to see if there is prima facie evidence against the petitioners for coming to the conclusion that they committed the aforesaid offences. According to Section 319 of the Code, when in the course of trial it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person can be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. It is now well settled that additional accused should not be summoned only on the ground that some passing reference has been made to them by some witnesses in the Court. This power is to be used very sparingly when there are compelling circumstances to show the involvement of the accused, who had not been earlier challand by the police. There is divergent view so far as the nature of the evidence produced before the trial court is concerned for passing the summoning order. Crl. Revision No. 1318 of 2010 {6} It was held in Sarabjit Singh's case(supra) that a person should be summoned only when court finds that evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of person sought to be summoned. Similarly, it was held in Lal Suraj's case(supra) that a person cannot be summoned to face trial on the basis of strong suspicion and the court must be satisfied that there is every possibility of conviction. However, it has recently been held by the Apex Court in Suman vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 269 that such an order can be passed if there is prima facie evidence against the person sought to be summoned. A perusal of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge makes it clear that he did record a finding that a prime facie case for summoning of the accused is made out. However, no reasoning has been recorded in support of that finding. Even the evidence produced during the trial was not discussed and the Presiding Officer was satisfied only by incorporating in his order that the complainant in her statement reiterated the contents of the complaint and that she proved on record the letters Ex. P-1 and P-2. Though these letters have not been placed on the record still at the time of arguments copies thereof were shown. When the complainant wrote those letters, that was the first opportunity with her to disclose the facts which amounts to accusation against the accused. The main allegations in those letter are against the husband. Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not take the pain of going through those letters in order to ascertain whether the contents of those letters support the statement of the complainant made in the Court. Her statement was not properly scrutinized in order to determine the truthfulness of the allegations made against different Crl. Revision No. 1318 of 2010 {7} accused/petitioners. It cannot be said that the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge is a reasoned one. An order without such a reasoning cannot be said to be legal order. Summoning of the petitioners as additional accused amounts to interfering in their individual liberty and the courts are required to pass reasoned orders. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari for passing a fresh reasoned order after properly scrutinizing the evidence produced during the trial. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 14, 2010 PARAMJIT