CRM No. 8713-M of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. 8713-M of 2008 Date of decision: January 30, 2009 Bhag Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. M.S. Jandiala, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Maharaj Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5. Rajan Gupta, J. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has impugned the orders dated 7th December, 2007 (Annexure P-1), passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala whereby he dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner and the order dated 21st November, 2005 (Annexure P-2), passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura, dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 406, 304-B, 506, 341 IPC, was upheld. The brief factual matrix of the case is that daughter of the complainant, the petitioner herein, was married to one Kesar Singh on 7th May, 1999. She was allegedly harassed by her in-laws due to demand of dowry due to which she died in July, 2003, leading to registration of FIR No.183 dated 31st July, 2003, under Section 306/34 IPC. During CRM No. 8713-M of 2008 2 the investigation, conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rajpura, the mother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Surjit Kaur was found innocent. However, challan was presented against Harbans Singh, elder brother of husband of the deceased and another accused Karnail Kaur. Charge was framed against the said accused on 31st July, 2003 under Section 306 IPC. The petitioner thereafter on 19th January, 2004 filed a complaint under Sections 406, 304-B, 506, 341 IPC against all the accused i.e. Kesar Singh, Harbans Singh, Surjit Kaur and Karnail Kaur. He sought summoning of all the accused in the private complaint. The complaint was, however, dismissed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajpura on 21.11.2005 on the ground that alternative remedy was available to the petitioner under Sections 216 and 319 Cr.P.C. The petitioner preferred a revision petition against the said order which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala on 7th December, 2007. While upholding the order, passed by Judicial Magistrate dismissing the complaint, the said court observed that since charge had been framed against accused Harbans Singh, Jeth of the deceased and Karnail Kaur, mother-in-law of the deceased, and trial was proceeding, no ground to take cognizance of the complaint filed by the petitioner was made out. It appears that the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Surjit Kaur wife of Harbans Singh and Kesar Singh son of Dayal Singh was also dismissed by a separate order. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that dismissal of the complaint filed by the petitioner was illegal and arbitrary as he CRM No. 8713-M of 2008 3 could lead evidence in the said complaint to prove the guilt of the accused under Sections 406, 304-B, 506, 341 IPC. Alternatively, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint and the FIR case could proceed together. He has relied upon the judgment reported as Bhagwant Pandey and others v. State of Bihar, 1986 Criminal Law Journal 1429 in support of his contention. The counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that detailed investigation was conducted in which Surjit Kaur wife of Harbans Singh was found innocent. According to the counsel, in the initial statement made by the complainant Bhag Singh (now petitioner) before the police, he never named Surjit Kaur or Kesar Singh. He had subsequently, improved his version. According to stand of the State, in the initial statement of Bhag Singh, which was recorded on 31st July, 2003, he did not level any allegation of demand of dowry or maltreatment against Surjit Kaur i.e. wife of elder brother of husband of the deceased or against Kesar Singh son of Dayal Singh, husband of the deceased. I have heard the counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the entire case. It is evident that after registration of the FIR under Section 304-B, a detailed investigation was conducted. However, in the said investigation, husband and elder brother's wife of the deceased were found innocent by the police. Challan was thus presented against the elder brother of husband of the CRM No. 8713-M of 2008 4 deceased and mother-in-law Karnail Kaur. Charge was framed against the said accused under Section 306 IPC. The accused are facing trial for the said offence. The separate complaint preferred in January, 2004 i.e. almost six months after the charge was framed, has thus rightly been dismissed by the courts below. A detailed investigation having been conducted pursuant to the FIR lodged by the complainant in July, 2003, the complaint preferred before the Judicial Magistrate was rightly dismissed by him and the order was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, observing inter alia that alternative remedy under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and Section 216 Cr.P.C. was available to the complainant. I do not find any ground to set-aside the said orders. Reliance placed by the counsel on the judgment of Patna High Court in Bhagwat Pandey's case (supra) is misplaced. In the said case the Magistrate had accepted the final report submitted by the police and had discharged the accused. It is only on a protest petition filed by the informant that the court proceeded to take cognizance under Section 202 of the Code. It was thus held that the Magistrate could proceed with the complaint case. The facts of the said case are thus totally different from the facts of the present case as in this case on the basis of investigation, challan has been presented and charges have been framed against the accused. The trial is in progress. Before presentation of challan, a detailed investigation was conducted. However, in the Bhagwant Pandey's case (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, it appears that in the final report submitted before the Magistrate, the police had found CRM No. 8713-M of 2008 5 the case to be false and thus a cancellation report was filed. Such is not the situation in the present case. No other argument has been addressed. The petition is thus dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE January 30, 2009 'rajpal'