Crl. Revision No. 474 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 474 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.02.2010 1. Hazura Singh s/o Harnam Singh, 2. Gurdeep Kaur w/o Hazura Singh, 3. Satwinder Singh s/o Hazura Singh, All rs/o H.No.9, Maya Nagar, Near Gurdawara, Ludhiana. ....... Revision petitioners Versus 1. State of Punjab, 2. Binder Singh s/o Lal Singh,r/o H.No.11, Gali No.5, Vijay Nagar, Batala Road, Amritsar. ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the revision-petitioner. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the judgment dated 18.01.2010, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide which it accepted the revision petition against the order dated 3.9.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. Crl. Revision No. 474 of 2010 2 2. A complaint was lodged by Binder Singh, complainant, stating therein that the marriage of his daughter Navdeep Kaur, was solemnized with Satwinder Singh, on 19.03.2003. At the time of Shagan ceremony, several gifts were given to Satwinder Singh, which included Gold items, watch etc. However, Satwinder Singh, his parents and his sister Ravneet Kaur were not satisfied with the dowry articles. They started raising demand of a City Honda Car, Air Conditioner, TV, Refrigerator and a sum of Rs.20.00 lacs, to enable Satwinder Singh to pursue studies abroad. They even got disconnected the telephone in the matrimonial home of Navdeep Kaur, so that she may not be able to talk with him, regarding the illegal demand of her in-laws. When Navdeep Kaur refused to meet dowry demands, she was insulted and maltreated. The accused used to taunt her by saying that she had not brought any furniture, sofa-set, beds etc. She was also turned out of her matrimonial home after 3-4 days of her marriage. It was further stated that Navdeep Kaur disclosed everything to him and her mother. 3. On 26.03.2003 Navdeep Kaur went to England from where she kept on communicating with Satwinder Singh and others, but he (Satwinder Singh) kept on threatening and pressurizing her for dowry, failing which he(Satwinder Singh) Crl. Revision No. 474 of 2010 3 told her that he will perform second marriage. A sum of Rs.3.00 lacs was also snatched from her by the accused, which she had received as Shagan from her parents. Navdeep Kaur was given beatings mercilessly, as a result whereof, her spine was fractured and she had to undergo a major operation, as certified by Dr. J.N. Jha, 310, St. Geogres Road, Presston Lancashire. Navdeep Kaur was also getting Physiotherapy and her Istridhan had also not been returned. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, made by Binder Singh, FIR was registered. The investigation was conducted by the Police. During the course of investigation, the Police came to the conclusion, that the accused were innocent . As such, the cancellation report was presented in the Court of the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, who did not agree with the same, and returned the same to the Police for further investigation , vide order dated 28.01.2008. The Police again submitted the cancellation report. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant and the accused, the cancellation report was accepted by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, vide order dated 03.09.2008. Crl. Revision No. 474 of 2010 4 6. Feeling aggrieved, a revision petition was filed, which was accepted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment dated 18.01.2010. 7. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant revision petition has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, has submitted that the matter could not be sent to the Police again and again for further investigation. He further submitted that since the cancellation report was accepted by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, after further investigation, there was no ground to order reconsideration thereof afresh. He has further submitted that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, committed illegality by directing the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, to decide the cancellation report afresh after taking into consideration the statement of Navdeep Kaur, recorded on 26.11.2007, by the Police. He further submitted that the Revisional Court could not direct the trial Court, to take into consideration the statement of a particular witness, which was recorded during the course of investigation and then take Crl. Revision No. 474 of 2010 5 decision on the cancellation report. He further submitted that in the meantime,Navdeep Kaur daughter of the complainant, filed a petition for divorce, on the basis of cruelty and desertion. He further submitted that, in those proceedings, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, observed that the story of the complainant was cooked up. He further submitted that the divorce petition was dismissed. He further submitted that the findings recorded by the matrimonial Court, in the divorce petition, that there was no cruelty or desertion, on the part of Satwinder Singh, would have been precedent over the criminal proceedings. He further submitted that the order of the Revisional Court, being illegal, is liable to be set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The statement of Navdeep Kaur was recorded during the course of investigation on 26.11.2007. Certified copy of that statement was placed on record during the pendency of the revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. In that statement, she levelled allegations regarding her harassment against her husband, on account of demand of dowry and also with regard to the mis-appropriation of dowry articles by them. Crl. Revision No. 474 of 2010 6 Since the statement of Navdep Kaur, which was recorded by the police, during the course of investigation, was not inadvertently placed on the police file, that did not mean that the same could not be considered by the Court below, for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision, with regard to the cancellation report. So far as the findings of the Matrimonial Court in the divorce petition, are concerned, the same cannot be said to be conclusive to decide the fate in criminal proceedings. In a criminal case, the prosecution is required to prove the allegations, beyond a reasonable doubt whereas in a civil case, the preponderance of evidence is to be taken into consideration, for deciding the same. The decree of divorce, can be said to be a piece of evidence, during the course of trial of the case. The impact thereof, on the criminal case, is required to be determined, during the course of trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that, on account of the findings, recorded in the divorce petition, by the Matrimonial Court, no criminal offence was constituted. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion that since the material document i.e. statement of Navdeep Kaur was not considered by the trial Court and it took a wrong view that, on account of the findings in the divorce petition, the allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, fall to the Crl. Revision No. 474 of 2010 7 ground, the order passed by it (trial Court) was liable to be set aside. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that the discretion exercised by the Revisional Court, in sending back the case to the trial Court, to decide the same afresh, after taking into consideration the statement of Navdeep Kaur, recorded on 26.11.2007, by the Police, during the course of investigation, was, in any way, arbitrary or capricious. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same is liable to be upheld. 11. For the reasons, recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE February 17, 2010 dinesh