Crl.Rev.No. 76 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 76 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.8.2011 Beer Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Amandeep Singh, AAG, Haryana. Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate, for the complainant. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) challenging the order dated 26.7.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the application filed by prosecution, under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning the petitioners as additional accused to face the trial, was allowed. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, FIR No. 346 dated 31.12.2009 was registered against the accused under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Madlauda . After investigation of the case, challan was presented Crl.Rev.No. 76 of 2011 (O&M) 2 against accused Dharambir Singh. During the pendency of the trial, an application was moved by the prosecution for summoning of the present petitioners to face the trial as an accused. Vide the impugned order the said application was allowed. Hence, the present petition by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely involved in this case. The petitioners are the old parents of accused Dharambir singh. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves dismissal. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Dharambir Singh was married to Bhavna on 15.2.2009. The complainant party gave sufficient dowry at the time of marriage of Bhavna. After one month of marriage, Bhavna told the complainant that her mother-in-law Roshni Devi, father-in-law Beer Singh and her husband were taunting her on account of insufficient dowry. The deceased also told the complainant that the accused were harassing her as they were saying that they had demanded a car at the time of marriage but only a motorcycle had been given. The deceased further told the complainant that when she left the matrimonial home, her mother-in-law told her that she should return back with a car. Accused Dharambir then went to the house of the complainant and raised the demand of a car and also demanded ` 2,00,000/- to enable him to get a job. In June, 2009, the deceased came to the house of the complainant and informed him that she had been thrown out of the matrimonial home by her mother -in-law, father-in-law and husband after giving beatings to her. After 15 days, the complainant left his sister Bhavna in her matrimonial home and told the mother Crl.Rev.No. 76 of 2011 (O&M) 3 -in-law of his sister that their demand qua car would be met at the time of birth of the child of his sister. At that time, husband and father-in-law of Bhawna were also present there. Roshni Devi, however, insisted that the car should be given immediately. Ten days prior to the death of Bhavna, complainant had received a phone call from her that she was being ill-treated by her in-laws. On 31.12.2009, the complainant came to know that his sister had died. Section 319 reads as under:- “Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence:- 1) where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. 2)Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. 3) Any person attending the Court although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. 4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witnesses Crl.Rev.No. 76 of 2011 (O&M) 4 re-heard. b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” It has been held by the Apex Court in case Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 250 as under:- “A reading of the plain language of Section 319(1) CrPC makes it clear that a person not already an accused in a case can be proceeded against if in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence it appears from the evidence that such person has also committed any offence and deserves to be tried with other accused. There is nothing in the language of Section 319(1) CrPC from which it can be inferred that a person who is named in the FIR or complaint but against whom charge sheet is not filed by the police, cannot be proceeded against even though in the course of any inquiry into or trial of any offence the court finds that such person has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the other accused.” “The process issued against the appellant under Section 319 CrPC 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. A person who is named in the FIR or complaint with Crl.Rev.No. 76 of 2011 (O&M) 5 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 CrPC 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.” “The Magistrate had objectively considered the entire matter and judiciously exercised discretion under Section 319 CrPC for taking cognizance against the appellant. The issue of summons against the appellant was not an abuse of the process of the court. While deciding the application filed under Section 319 CrPC, the Magistrate noticed the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the complaint that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law had castigated her for insufficient dowry and subjected her to physical and mental harassment and that the sister-in-law had instigated the complainant’s husband to inflict physical torture upon her, which were supported by the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC and by the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. In her complaint Respondent No.2 alleged that after one week of the marriage, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law (the appellant) told her that in the marriage, items like scooter, fridge, air conditioner, etc. were not given and the marriage party was not served well and that Crl.Rev.No. 76 of 2011 (O&M) 6 on the instigations of the mother-in-law and the appellant sister-in-law, the husband gave beating with the belan, and the appellant forcibly removed the rings.” “The complainant clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant and made a specific mention about this in the letters written to her parents and the Magistrate opined that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the appellant. The father and mother of respondent No.2 and four other persons, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 CrPC, clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in harassing Respondent No.2 and instigating the complainant’s husband to inflict torture upon her. Despite this, the police did not file charge-sheet against the appellant thinking that she had no occasion to make demand of dowry or harass Respondent No.2 because the appellant was living with her husband. Therefore, the trial of the appellant should proceed and should be decided expeditiously” “The High Court broadly referred to the factual matrix of the case and held that the orders passed by the Magistrate and Sessions Judge did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC. The approach adopted by the High Court is in consonance with the settled law. Although at one stage, the Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the appellant and declared that in view of the bar of Crl.Rev.No. 76 of 2011 (O&M) 7 limitation contained in Section 468 CrPC, the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance against the appellant, the said order was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal of the revision petition. In the post remand order passed by him, the Sessions Judge independently examined the entire record and held that prima facie case was made out for initiating proceedings against the appellant herein under Section 498-A IPC.” Complainant, while appearing in the witness box, deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Thus, in the present case, there was sufficient material before the trial Court to order the summoning of the petitioners, who are father-in-law and mother-in- law of deceased Bhavna, as additional accused. From the testimony of the complainant, it is evident that the petitioners were also harassing the deceased qua demand of dowry. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the son of the petitioners on 15.2.2009 and she has died on 13.12.2009 due to hanging. The deceased Bhavna has died an unnatural death within ten months of her marriage in the house of her in-laws. Both the petitioners were declared innocent during investigation but since during trial there is sufficient material before the trial Court to proceed against the petitioners, no ground for interference in the impugned order, by this Court, is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. SABINA) JUDGE August 02, 2011 anita