Criminal Revision No.876 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision. No. 876 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:March 18, 2010 Gurdev Singh and others ...........Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. N.S.Sodhi,Advocate for the petitioners. ** Sabina, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C. in short) wherein petitioners have challenged order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Ferozepur summoning the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The contents of the FIR read as under:- " Megha Singh s/o Roor Singh Caste Jatt residents of village Nihala Levera aged 62 years stated that I am resident of the above said address and does the work of agriculture. At about 8.30 A.M. I and my son were going from our village Nihala Lavera to village Bagga Wala. When we were near about bann then there were many kikkar trees along with the bann and suddenly out from the kikkar trees 5 persons came out and blocked our way. Criminal Revision No.876 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Massa Singh s/o Ajaib Singh caste Jatt Sikh resident of village Nihala Lavera armed with gandasa, Jassa Singh s/o Ajaib Singh armed with gandasa, Nirvail Singh s/o Massa Singh armed with gandasa, Gurdev Singh s/o Massa Singh armed with kirpan and Sukhdev Singh s/o Balvir Singh (Nihang) who is living in the house of Massa Singh since last 2 years and was also armed with dang. Jassa Singh s/o Ajaib Singh raised lalkara that let the Megh Singh and his son Swaran Singh may not go scot free today. On saying so by Jassa Singh, Gurdev Singh gave a blow of armed kirpan with intention to kill me which hit on back of my head. Gurdev Singh gave another Kirpal blow which hit on the left side below my head. Then Jassa Singh gave 3 to 4 blows of his armed gandasa upon my persons which hit on outer side of my left hand and I fell on the ground. When I was lying down Massa Singh gave a gandasa upon my person which hit on my left ankle and Nirvail Singh gave a blow of gandasa which hit on my left leg below the knee. Then again Nirval Singh gave blow of gandasa which hit towards knee of my left leg. These five persons have cause enough injuries to my son Swaran Singh who on arising hue and cry from our side these all five persons after causing injury ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. Then my nephew Jasbir Singh son of Teja Singh resident of village Baggawala arranged a vehicel and got us admitted in Civil Hospital Ferozepur where we are under treatment. The cause of occurrence is that in regard with the dispute our litigation is going on with Massa Singh etc. in the court. And putting pressure they Criminal Revision No.876 of 2010 (O&M) 3 are compelling for compromise. So because of this grudge the above said persons have caused us injuries. The statement recorded and have heard which is correct" Thereafter, challan was presented against accused-Jassa Singh and Sukhdev Singh. After recording of the statement of PW1 Megh Singh, complainant, prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Massa Singh, Nirvail Singh and Gurdev Singh as additional accused. As per the complainant, Gurdev Singh had given a kirpan blow on the back side of his head and another blow on the left side on the back side of his head. Massa Singh gave a gandasa blow on the left ankle of the complainant. Thus, the said allegations were duly mentioned in the FIR also. However, the petitioners were neither put under column No.2 at the time of presentation of challan nor any reason was given as to why they had not been challaned. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. The Apex Court in Suman vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 250 held as under 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 Criminal Revision No.876 of 2010 (O&M) 4 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 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, Criminal Revision No.876 of 2010 (O&M) 5 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-inlaw (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 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 Criminal Revision No.876 of 2010 (O&M) 6 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 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.” Thus, the trial Court has the jurisdiction to summon a person as an additional accused in case during trial, it transpires that the additional accused were also liable to face the trial along with accused who had been challaned. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly exercised the jurisdiction while summoning the petitioners as an additional accused as there was prima facie sufficient material against them to be summoned to face trial as an additional accused. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (Sabina) Judge March 18, 2010 arya