Criminal Revision No. 738 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 738 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.04.2010 Seema Rani ..............Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ................Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Additional Advocate General, Punjab HARBANS LAL,J. This petition has been moved by Seema Rani for setting aside the summoning order dated 23.2.2010 Annexure P-1, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala qua her. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner has been summoned without applying the judicious mind by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is sister-in-law (jethani). She has been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the father of the deceased. After registration of the F.I.R. Annexure P-3, she had moved an application through her father to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala regarding her false implication in the case. The matter was inquired by the Senior Police Officers of the rank of S.P./D.S.P. The complainant Criminal Revision No. 738 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Krishan Kumar Singla was associated in the inquiry. The petitioner was found innocent after detailed inquiry in which it has surfaced that the petitioner is living separately with her husband from her in-laws since 2004 even before the marriage of Lalit Mohan husband of the deceased Poonam. Her husband has been doing the business separately from the deceased's husband. There was no evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence and she was put in column No.2 in the report submitted under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned order is liable to be quashed on the grounds embodied in this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant in F.I.R. Annexure P-3 did not raise any allegation qua the petitioner regarding demand of Swift car. The petitioner is sister-in-law of the deceased's husband and is having the same status in the family as the deceased was having. Even the complainant does not connect the petitioner with the demand of Swift car in the evidence Annexure P-5 recorded before the Court. There is no fresh evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence except the same general allegations as levelled in the F.I.R. Annexure P-3 which have no foundation and proof. The matter has already been investigated by the police and the petitioner was not challaned. She has been found to be innocent as per detailed inquiry report Annexure P-4 in which the complainant/author of the F.I.R. was associated and he did not adduce any evidence against the petitioner during inquiry. To tide over these submissions, the learned State counsel Criminal Revision No. 738 of 2010 (O&M) 3 maintained that Krishan Kumar Singla complainant in his statement Annexure P-5 has stated in categoric terms that Seema (referring to the petitioner) alongwith her co-accused on not fulfilling their demand of car had insulted them(referring to the complainant party). Thus, the impugned order can be hardly faulted with. This contention merits rejection for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In Ram Pal Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another 2009(2)Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal)131 it has been held by the Supreme Court that “All that is required by the Court for invoking its powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be satisfied that from the evidence adduced before it, a person against whom no charge had been framed, but whose complicity appears to be clear, should be tried together with the accused. It is also clear that the discretion is left to the Court to take a decision on the matter.” Further in Sarabjit Singh & Another Vs. State of Punjab & Another 2009(3) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal) 388 it has been held by the Apex Court that “a person should be summoned only when Court finds that evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of person sought to be summoned.” It has also been held that “this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. In Ram Singh & Others Vs. Ram Niwas & Another 2009(3) Recent Criminal Reports(Criminal)501 also it has been held that “power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. must be exercised very sparingly and not as a matter of course. The court is to arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence Criminal Revision No. 738 of 2010 (O&M) 4 adduced on behalf of the prosecution if go unrebutted would lead to conviction of person sought to be added as accused in the case. Adverting to the instant one, in the inquiry report Annexure P-4 dated 17.2.2009 conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Tapa it has been mentioned that “From my inquiry, it is found that Seema Rani is not connected with the death of Poonam. Seema Rani was living separately from her in-laws with her husband for the last five years, which is also proved by the ration card and copy of gas connection that she is living separately from her in-laws. That the complainant has not produced any solid proof regarding the guilt of Seema Rani. From my inquiry, Seema Rani is found totally innocent in the case and I recommend her innocent in the case.” Krishan Kumar Singla author of the F.I.R. when examined as PW-2 in the court in his statement Annexure P-5 has stated that “on the eve of Diwali my wife Usha Rani, my elder son-in-law Ashok Kumar and my son Mukesh Singla had come to in-laws house of my daughter at Tapa. All the family members of in-laws family of Poonam who are joint in mess were present in the house at that time. Then Lalit Mohan, Shatrajit and Krishna Devi had stated to my wife about not fulfilling their demand of car.” It is abundantly clear from this evidence that he has not levelled the allegations of demand of car or any other allegations against the petitioner. He has merely named Lalit Mohan, Shatrajit and Krishna Devi. There is general tendency to implicate all the relations of the husband of the deceased. As per the documents discussed in the above mentioned inquiry report, the petitioner alongwith her husband is residing separately from her in-laws. They are separate in mess and business. Statedly, the petitioner has two Criminal Revision No. 738 of 2010 (O&M) 5 small daughters who are school going. Her husband has also been found innocent during the inquiry. In a nut shell, the allegations against the petitioner are that she alongwith her co-accused was demanding Swift car. She by no stretch of speculation could be a beneficiary as the car being demanded was to be used by her co-accused. A glance through the afore- referred statement of Krishan Kumar Singla would reveal that it contains vague and general allegations qua the petitioners regarding demand of Swift car. It is apt to be borne in mind that the petitioner being a 'jethani' is having the same status in the family as the deceased was having. In the impugned order, the learned trial Court has simply observed that “However, there is enough material coming against Seema, wife of Shatrajit to proceed further and to summon her to face trial alongwith the accused who are already facing trial.” There is nothing in the impugned order to show that the learned trial Court has objectively considered the entire matter and judiciously exercised the discretion under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioner. The trial Court has also not recorded that it has been found that the evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the petitioner sought to be summoned as an additional accused. It has been consistently held by the Apex Court that the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. being extra ordinary power should be exercised sparingly only if compelling reasons exist in taking cognizance against other person against whom action has not been taken. If the matter is viewed in the backdrop of afore quoted law, it transpires that prima facie no case is made out for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused for the reason that as per the ration card, gas connection and other documentary Criminal Revision No. 738 of 2010 (O&M) 6 evidence she alongwith her husband is putting up separately. Her husband is also separate in business. As a sequel of the above discussion, the summoning order dated 23.2.2010 Annexure P-1 is hereby set aside qua the petitioner. This petition is disposed of accordingly. Since the petition has been decided, all pending Criminal Miscellaneous,if any, also stand disposed of. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE April 26, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes