CRR No. 3004 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 3004 of 2010 Date of decision: 12.11.2010 Narinder Singh and others ........ Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Onkar singh Advocate for the petitioners -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. This is a revision petition against the order dated 23.10.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which, an application filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed. Brief facts as stated in the petition are that Rajvir Kaur who is working as Clerk in the office of Punjab Police Department, Chandigarh made a complaint that her sister Rajvinder Kaur deceased got married with Pargat Singh son of Balkar Singh. She gave birth to a son Harkirat Singh aged about 3 years. That on 15.01.2006 at about 9.50 am, she got a telephone call that her sister Rajvinder Kaur had died last night. Then, she CRR No. 3004 of 2010 2 and her parents reached the in-laws house of Rajvinder Kaur. She noticed dead body of Rajvinder Kaur lying in the house but apparently there was no mark of injury but they had a doubt that her husband Pargat Singh, brother- in-law Narinder Singh, sister-in-law Rano and mother-in-law Gurdeep Kaur had murdered her because since the day of marriage all the accused were insisting upon her to bring more dowry. At that time, she under the influence of respectable of the village and Nihangs did not lodge any report. She further stated that now she had suspicion that the accused murdered her sister for dowry therefore, action should be taken against them. As result of which, FIR No. 70 dated 02.06.2006 under Sections 304-B, 34 IPC was registered against the accused. Challan was presented against the husband of the deceased only and the petitioners were kept in column No.2. Thereafter, a petition in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed but the same was dismissed. However, revision petition bearing No. 2136 of 2010 was filed in this Court. Learned Single Judge accepted the same and remanded the matter to the trial Court for re- doing the exercise. Accordingly, the petitioners were summoned to face trial under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are residing separately. The allegations are vague and unspecified. No date or time has been mentioned as to when the demand of dowry was made nor did any specific incident of cruelty mention. The entire family has been enroped for no rhyme and reason . Heard. CRR No. 3004 of 2010 3 No doubt, lately, a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases in order to browbeat and pressurise the immediate family of the husband. Accordingly, sometimes inflated and exaggerated allegations are made. However, each case has to be taken on its own facts. As already submitted above, in the present case, Rajvinder Kaur had died. The present case pertains to an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. All the petitioners have been specifically named by all the witnesses i.e. PW1-Rajvir Kaur-sister, PW2-Surjit Singh-real brother, PW3 Kartar Singh-father, PW4-Shangara Singh-real uncle as well as PW5 Joginder Kaur-mother. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Suman v. State of Rajasthan and another reported as 2009(4)RCR (Criminal) 908, in para 15 held as under:- “15. In view of the settled legal position as above, we hold that a person who is named in the first information report 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 Cr.P.C. 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. As a corollary, we hold that the process issued against the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 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.” CRR No. 3004 of 2010 4 In the light of the above, this Court has considered whether the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur was justified in taking the cognisance against the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC or the satisfaction recorded by him for issuing process against the petitioners under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is vitiated by any legal infirmity. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Additional Sessions Judge, after pursing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was specific allegations against the present petitioners. PW5 Mother has specifically stated that Rajwinder Kaur has been administered poison by her in-laws and she died on account of the same. Even as per the chemical examiner report, poison was detected in the body of the deceased. All the witnesses have stated in one tone that the petitioners used to harass the deceased to bring more dowry and they often quarrel with her. She has died leaving behind a minor son. Thus, it cannot be said that the issue of process for summoning the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. In view of the above, the present criminal revision is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge November 10, 2010 mohan