1 Nathu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.217/2009 DATE OF ORDER : 01.04. 2009 HON'BLE MR. MANAK MOHTA, J. Mr.Rajesh Choudhary for the petitioner. Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi , Public Prosecutor. Mr.L.D.Khatri for the respondent. This revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 06.11.08 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No.55/2008, by which the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application filed under section 193 Cr.P.C. to take cognizance and summon the mother in-law of the deceased. The brief facts of the case for the disposal of this revision petition are as under ; It reveals from the record that a report was filed by the complainant on 05.09.08 at Police Station Sangad, District Jaisalmer stating interalia that his daughter Kanchan was 2 married to Khemchand . Thereafter, at her in-law's house she was harassed and mal-treated by her husband, father in-law , mother in-law and sister in-law. It was also stated in the report that her father in-law made attempts to commit rape. She made complaints about this incident to her mother in-law but it is stated that her mother in-law and her husband did not give heed to her complaint. It is stated in the said report that mother in-law was also involved in harassing and mal-treating and demanding dowry. In the report it is also stated that they poured kerosene on her and set her on fire on 31.08.08. and due to that she succumbed to the burn injuries on 04.11.08. On his report an FIR No.41/2008 was registered under sections 498-A, 304-B and 354 IPC against her husband, father in-law as well as against mother in-law and sister in-law. The police also obtained the dying declaration recorded by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaisalmer in which she had made allegations also against her father in-law and mother in-law. It is revealed from the record that the police, after investigation, only filed challan against her husband and father in-law under sections 306, 498-A, 354 and 376/511 IPC. The case was then committed to the court of Sessions. At the stage of framing of charge, on 3 06.11.08 the Public Prosecutor filed an application under section 193 Cr.P.C., stating interalia that in addition to her husband, and father in-law , mother in-law of the deceased Smt.Devki was also involved in the commission of crime. Therefore, a prayer was made that cognizance may also be taken against the mother in-law Smt. Devki, S/o Chanda Ram and she may be summoned in pending Sessions case. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties on this application, vide impugned order dated 06.11.08 refused to take cognizance and to call her but in the said order, he gave liberty to file application under section 319 Cr.P.C., after recording of the evidence during trial. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed this revision petition. Notice of this revision petition was issued, record of the case was called and arguments were heard. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that though the role of the mother in-law find mention in the report and further the deceased in her dying declaration had also made allegation against mother in-law 4 but despite that police has not thoroughly investigated and has not filed charge sheet against her. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, should have taken cognizance and summoned her but the learned Sessions Judge, without properly going through the record of the case, erroneously rejected the application. A request was made to quash and set aside the impugned order and direction be given to add Smt.Devki , mother in-law of the deceased as an accused and take cognizance and to summon her in the same case. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the accused, refuted the contention and submitted that the police, after thorough investigation, did not find involvement of the mother in-law, therefore, has not filed challan against her. The committal court has also not taken cognizance against her at the time of committing the case. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge, at the stage of charge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and to call her. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application while reserving his rights to move in this respect, at a proper stage. The said order is not suffering from any infirmity 5 and prayed to dismiss the revision. Learned Public Prosecutor also cited the judgment given in Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Punjab [ 1998 Cr.L.R. SC 703], in support of his contention. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the impugned order as well as record of the case. From the perusal of record it is revealed that police , after investigation, did not file charge sheet against her, thus she was not committed to the court of Sessions. Before the court of Sessions, yet prosecution witnesses have not been examined . Therefore, in these circumstances, the Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the prayer to add Smt.Devki as an accused and to summon her. There is no illegality and infirmity in the said order. The conclusion also finds support from the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh (supra) . In that case, it has been observed that Sessions Judge has no power to add any person as accused at the stage of charge. Further, the learned Sessions Judge has reserved the right of petitioner to file an application under section 319 Cr.P.C., after recording of the evidence. 6 Thus, the rights of the complainant, if any, has been protected. In these circumstances, without commenting any thing on the merit of the case, the contentions raised by the revision petitioner are not acceptable and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed that is hereby dismissed , with liberty to the petitioner to move an application at the proper stage. (MANAK MOHTA), J. l.george