Suman vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr

3. The appellant's brother Pramod Kumar was married to respondent No.2 on 7.12.2000 at Sri Ganganagar. After one year and four months, respondent No.2 submitted a complaint to the Judicial Magistrate alleging that due to her failure to bring sufficient dowry and meet the demand of her in-laws, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and harassment in different ways. The learned Judicial Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. Thereupon, FIR No.150/2002 was registered at police station Jawahar Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar for offences under Sections 406, 498A, 354, 377 and 323 IPC. During investigation, the police recorded the statements of respondent No.2 - Smt. Anita, her father Shri Jaipal, mother Smt. Savitri Devi and four other persons, namely, Shri Premnath, Shri Hanuman Chautala, Shri Brijlal, Shri Kripal Singh and filed charge sheet on 4.1.2003 against Pramod Kumar - husband of respondent No.2, Rukmani 3 Devi - mother-in-law and Ram Kumar @ Rampratap - father-in-law. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the Investigating Officer opined that she was innocent because she was living at Bikaner with her husband and had not caused harassment to respondent No.2 or made demand for dowry. By an order dated 5.8.2005, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed charges against three accused and adjourned the case for prosecution evidence. On 16.6.2006, the statement of respondent No.2 was recorded. Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of respondent No.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for issuing process against the appellant. The learned Judicial Magistrate adverted to the contents of the complaint filed by respondent No.2, the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also the statement made by respondent No.2 before the court and held that prima facie case was made out for taking cognizance against the appellant for offence under Section 498-A IPC. He accordingly passed order dated 2.9.2006 and directed that the appellant be summoned through bailable warrant. The revision filed by the appellant against that order was allowed by Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar who held that in view of the bar contained in Section 468 Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate was not entitled to take cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the appellant under Section 498-A IPC. The revisional order was set aside by the learned Single Judge of the High 4 Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.25 of 2007 and the matter was remitted to the revisional court for fresh decision in the light of the observations made by him on the issue of limitation in the context of Section 473 Cr.P.C.

The statement of the complainant which have been recorded on oath before the court, therein also, evidence has been adduced against Suman. Apart from these, in the letters written by the complainant to her parents, instigating her parents by Suman over the telephone against the complainant, and upon her having return conduct cruel behaviour with her have been disclosed. On the basis of all of these facts and the available evidences, prima facie grounds are available for initiating proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code."

12. The question whether a Sessions Court can take cognizance against a person qua whom there is no committal order was considered and answered in affirmative in Joginder Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another (1979) 1 SCC 345. The facts of that case were that on a complaint made by one Mohinder Singh, a criminal case was registered at Police Station Dakha against Joginder Singh, Ram Singh (the two appellants), Bhan Singh, Darshan Singh and Ranjit Singh. During investigation police found Joginder Singh and Ram Singh to be innocent and, therefore, charge-sheet was submitted only against the remaining accused. The learned magistrate committed the three accused to the 1 Sessions Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana framed charges against the three accused for offences under Sections 452, 308 and 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. In their evidence, Mohinder Singh and Ajaib Singh implicated both the appellants. Thereupon, the Public Prosecutor filed an application for summoning the appellants. On behalf of the appellants, it was argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction or power to summon the appellants and array them as accused because they had neither been charge-sheeted nor committed to stand trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge negatived the contention of the appellants and directed that they be impleaded as accused. The High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellants. This Court noticed the provisions of Sections 193, 207-A and 209 Cr.P.C. and observed:

16. Before proceeding further, we deem it proper to observe that in some of the decisions, this Court has emphasized that discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously and not as a matter of routine - Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), Anil Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another (2006) 13 SCC 421 and Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and another (2007) 14 SCC 544. In Michael Machado's case, the Court was called upon to consider whether the Metropolitan Magistrate was justified in summoning the appellants under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at the penultimate stage of the trial. The first appellant in that case was the Chief Manager of Malad Branch of Corporation Bank at Mumbai and the second appellant was Chief Manager of Wadala Branch (Mumbai). On a complaint lodged by Deputy Manager of the bank with the allegation that the bank has been 1 defrauded by certain persons resulting in financial loss to the tune of Rs.50 lacs, a first information report was registered by the police. After investigation two charge sheets were filed before Metropolitan Magistrate against 4 persons. After perusing the charge sheets, the Metropolitan Magistrate felt that the CBI, which had conducted the investigation, was shielding the appellants. He, therefore, sought explanation from the CBI. After considering the explanation, the Metropolitan Magistrate opined that the Investigating Officer had committed an offence under Section 219 IPC and issued notice to him. Simultaneously, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate decided to implead the appellants as additional accused. That order was challenged by the concerned Investigating Officer. The High Court quashed the order but left it open to the Metropolitan Magistrate to take necessary action under Section 319 Cr.P.C. at an appropriate stage. Thereafter, the trial commenced against the four accused and as many as 49 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Till that stage, learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not consider it necessary to implead the appellants as accused. However, when statements of the remaining three witnesses were recorded, he passed a brief order summoning the appellants. The High Court upheld the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. This Court quashed the summoning order by observing that though evidence of last 3 witnesses may create some suspicion against the 2 appellants but that was not sufficient for convicting the appellants for the offence of conspiracy. The Court also felt that there was no warrant for wasting the massive evidence collected by the trial Court against the 4 accused. In the course of judgment, the Court made the following observation:

17. In the light of the above, we shall now consider whether the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC or the satisfaction recorded by him for issuing process against the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is vitiated by any legal infirmity and the learned Sessions Judge and High Court committed an error by refusing to quash the order passed by him. In the complaint filed by her, respondent No.2 alleged that after one week of the marriage, her mother-in-law - Rukmani Devi and nanad - Suman (the appellant herein) told her that in the marriage, items like scooter, fridge, air- conditioner etc. have not been given and the marriage party was not served well; that mother-in-law - Rukmani Devi and nanad - Suman forcibly took the complainant to a lady doctor and got implanted Copper-T so that she may not give birth to any child; that nanad - Suman started instigating the husband of the complainant either on phone or otherwise and thereupon, he not only used to assault, but also humiliate and torture the complainant; that on 7.4.2002 the husband gave beating with the belan and nanad - Suman snatched her hair and forcibly removed the rings. In her statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 reiterated all the allegations. The father and mother of respondent No.2 and 4 other persons, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., clearly spelt out the role played by the 2 appellant in harassing respondent No.2 and instigating her 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 for dowry or harass respondent No.2 because she was living with her husband, Mahendra Pal at Bikaner. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 again made specific allegations against the appellant. While deciding the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate noticed the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the complaint that her mother-in-law, Smt. Rukmani Devi and sister-in-law, Suman had castigated her for insufficient dowry and subjected her to physical and mental harassment and that the sister- in-law had instigated her husband to inflict physical torture, which were supported by the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate further noted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant has clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in the matter of demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment and the fact that the complainant had made a specific mention about this in the letters written to her parents and opined that prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the appellant. Therefore, it must be held that the learned Judicial Magistrate had objectively considered the entire matter and judiciously exercised 2 discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the appellant. Although at one stage, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the appellant and declared that in view of the bar of limitation contained in Section 468 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial 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 learned 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. Therefore, it is not possible to agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellant that issue of summons against the appellant amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

(emphasis supplied)

19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

20. It is needless to say that if the trial Court has not proceeded with the case on account of pendency of the petition filed by the appellant in this Court, the concerned Court shall now proceed with the trial and decide the matter expeditiously.