Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.01.2011 Harpreet Kaur alias Maane ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Crl. Rev. No.1075 of 2010 Pritam Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This order shall dispose of Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010 and Crl. Rev. No.1075 of 2010. Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010 has been filed by Harpreet Kaur alias Maane, who is the sister of the main accused, whereas, Crl. Rev. No.1075 of 2010 has been filed by Pritam Singh, father of the main accused. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010. FIR No.108 dated 02.05.2007 under Sections 376, 120-B IPC at Police Station Payal, Ludhiana was registered by the complainant- Rupinder Kaur against the brother-Satjeet Singh of the present petitioner. Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010 2 The petitioner was found innocent during investigation. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved summoning the accused Pritam Singh, father of Satjeet Singh in Crl. Rev. No.1075 of 2010 and Harpreet Kaur alias Maane, sister of Satjeet Singh in the present petition. The petitioner in the present case i.e. Harpreet Kaur alias Maane is a married lady and is a housewife having one small child. The husband of the petitioner is gainfully employed as Sepoy in Indian Army having No.15145923Y GNR (DS), Narinder Singh and is presently posted in Faridkot. The allegations against the main accused Satjeet Singh, brother of the present petitioner is that he gave sleeping tablets to the complainant who administered the same to her in laws at 3 o' clock A.M and ran away with Satjeet Singh in his Alto car on 14.03.2007. However, subsequently the said Satjeet Singh did not get married to the complainant. The present case was registered on 02.05.2007 i.e after 01 month and 17 days. In the present case, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Rupinder Kaur- complainant was recorded on 03.05.2007. There is not even a whisper about the name of the petitioner. However, the Investigating Agency gave one application dated 19.05.2007 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana for recording the statement of the girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In pursuance of the same, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class recorded the statement of the complainant on 19.05.2007 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Even in the statement of the complainant, the name of the petitioner does not find mention whatsoever. Since, no allegation was proved against the petitioner, the police submitted the challan against Satjeet Singh and his mother Ranjeet Kaur, whereas, the present petitioner-Harpreet Kaur and her father Pritam Singh were placed in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. On 22.05.2009, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved for summoning the petitioner along with her father Pritam Singh, Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010 3 who is an old man. The only evidence before the Court was the statement of the complainant. The said statement is only a repetition of the allegations. The mere statement of the complainant ipso-facto cannot form the basis of summon the persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. As per the said statement, the only allegation against the present petitioner is that she asked the complainant on 15.03.2007 to stay for 2/3 days and thereafter, promised to solemnize her marriage with her brother. The allegations against Satjit Singh is that he had taken her to his house at Bilaspur on the asking of his parents. However, from the above facts, it is evident that the complainant had willingly accompanied Satjeet Singh. The fact that he ultimately did not marry her, cannot make out an offence under Section 376 IPC. If at all, it may attract Section 420 IPC. However, the petitioners have not been summoned under the said Section. In Michael Machado and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75, considering the basic requirements of Section 319 of the Code, Court said: “ The basic requirement for invoking the above Section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, had committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertain some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused.” Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010 4 In Krishnappa vs. State of Karnataka reported as 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 678, the Court ruled that the power to summon an accused is an extraordinary power conferred on the Court and it should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the person other than the accused. The Apex Court in the case of Sarabjit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another reported as 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 388, in para 17, observed as under :- “17. The provision of Section 319 of the Code, on a plain reading, provides that such an extraordinary case has been made out must appear to the court. Has the criterion laid down by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) been satisfied is the question? Indisputably, before an additional accused can be summoned for standing trial, the nature of the evidence should be such which would make out grounds for exercise of extraordinary power. The materials brought before the court must also be such which would satisfy the court that it is one of those cases where its jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly. We may notice that in Y. Saraba Reddy v. Puthur Rami Reddy and Anr. [JT 2007(6) SC 460], this Court opined: “...Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. The word “evidence” in Section 319 contemplates that evidence of witnesses given in Court...” An order under Section 319 of he Code, therefore, should not be passed only because the first informant or one of the witnesses seeks to implicate other person(s). Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by the court so as to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions. Mere ipse dixit would not Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010 5 serve the purpose. Such an evidence must be convincing one at least for the purpose of exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. For the aforementioned purpose, the courts are required to apply stringent tests; one of the tests being whether evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned.” Applying the test as laid down in the case of Sarabjit Singh and another (supra), in the present case, the same is not sufficient to summon the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were summoned on the basis of the statement of Rupinder Kaur. There is no other evidence. The said statement is repetition of the statement before the police under Section 164 Cr.P.C as recorded earlier. The petitioners were found innocent on the basis of the same. The complainant was already married. She eloped with Satjeet Singh out of her own free will. She is a mature and grown up lady. The fact that Satjit Singh did not get married to her in spite of the promise to marry her by no stretch of imagination attract offence under Sections 376, 120-B IPC qua the petitioner in the present case, as well as, the petitioner in Crl. Rev. No.1075 of 2010, who are the married sister and old father, respectively of Satjeet Singh. Accordingly, the present petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 18.09.2009, vide which, the petitioners have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is, hereby, set aside. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 24.01.2011 JUDGE gurpreet