Back
High Court of Patna
S.H.S. Abidi, J.
Rama Sharma – Petitioner
Vs.
Pinki Sharma & others - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. 61 of 1989
Decided on : 31.8.1989
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 319 - Summoning of additional accused - Power of the court - Scope and extent - Exercise of power - Principles to be followed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Rama Sharma, filed a complaint against her husband and four other family members, including two women, alleging cruelty, harassment, and attempts to kill her. The complaint was registered as a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused were discharged by the Additional Sessions Judge after examining the evidence of four witnesses. The petitioner filed an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to summon the two women who had been discharged. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application, holding that there was no evidence against the women and that the application was not maintainable. The petitioner filed a revision petition in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge had erred in rejecting the application under Section 319 CrPC. The court held that the petitioner had a locus standi to file the application and that the discharge of the two women did not bar the exercise of the power under Section 319 CrPC. The court also held that the evidence on record was sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the two women.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had a locus standi to file an application under Section 319 CrPC after the discharge of the accused? 2. Whether the discharge of the two women barred the exercise of the power under Section 319 CrPC? 3. Whether there was sufficient evidence on record to make out a prima facie case against the two women?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner had a locus standi to file an application under Section 319 CrPC after the discharge of the accused. The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, which held that a complainant has a right to approach the court for the punishment of the offender and that the complainant does not lose his or her locus standi by filing a complaint. 2. The court held that the discharge of the two women did not bar the exercise of the power under Section 319 CrPC. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, which held that the provisions of Sections 227, 239, and 245 CrPC, which deal with the discharge of accused persons, do not bar the exercise of the power under Section 319 CrPC. 3. The court held that there was sufficient evidence on record to make out a prima facie case against the two women. The court referred to the petitioner's statement, in which she had specifically alleged that the two women had assaulted her and had tried to kill her. The court also referred to the statements of other witnesses, which corroborated the petitioner's statement.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The court directed the Additional Sessions Judge to add the two women as accused in the session trial.
S.H.S. Abidi, J.
The petitioner Rama Sharma has come to this court against the order dated 5.12.88 passed in Sessions trial No. 279/84 by Sri C.D. Rai, learned Additional Sessions Judge IX Patna, refusing to summon O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 under section 319 Cr. P.C.
2. It appears that a complaint was filed by Smt. Rama Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainant') before the learned C.J.M., Patna saying that she was married to Brijbhushan Sharma, accused No.5 on 21.2.79 and various valuable articles as detailed in the complaint petition were given to her by way of gift and that both lived a peaceful life for about 4 months. Thereafter the accused namely Dharam Pal Sharma, (father-in-law), Ratan Devi (mother-in-law), Pinki Devi (wife of the elder brother of the husband), Deobrat Sharma (elder brother of the husband) and Brijbhushan Sharma (the husband himself) started to extract money from her and pressed her to bring money from her widowed mother. She brought heavy amounts four or five times but ultimately out of annoyance her mother refused to pay any more. Dharam Pal and Deobrat started pressing the complainant to indulge in flesh trade by giving allurement. Brijbhushan, the husband, also pressed her to indulge in the immoral acts, Pinki Sharma, a woman of bad character and having illicit connection with the complainant's father-in-law Dharam Pal continued in flesh trading and earned handsome money. On her refusal to indulge in the flesh trade the informant was in treated by the accused persons and they began to assault and forced her to go out of the house and they also snatched her ornaments. On various dates she was assaulted. On 18.8.81 at about 10 P.M. Ratan Devi and Pinki Sharma closed the door from inside at the instance of other accused and then Brijbhushan Sharma sprinkled kerosene oil over the complainants body and he tried to lit the fire but her hue and cry attracted the people of the mohalla and then she was saved. It was again on 8.10.81 at about 11 P.M. that she was assaulted by all the accused with fists and slaps bitterly and even her two children were snatched from her for which she lodged an information at the Police station but by the time the police came the accused had left the house. It was again on 5.1.82 at about 9.30 P.M. that she was assaulted by the accused and turned out of the house bat on the intervention of the police she could go back to her house.
It was on 14.1.82 at about 2 A.M. in the night that the accused got her seated in a Taxi but when commotion prevailed in the house her life was saved. On 12.2.82 she was again assaulted and Deobrat Sharma closed her mouth and got her fallen down in a room and then Brijbhushan Sharma started pressing her neck to kill her but it was on the intervention of the neighbours again that her life was saved. Again the accused arranged to kill her on 15.2.82 but somehow she informed the City Superintendent of Police whereupon the notice arrived and found the facts correct but the police did not register any case. Again on 25.2.82 at about 11.30 P.M. the ac 'used assaulted her and Brijbhushan Sharma forced her to write a paper that she was leaving the house on her own accord. Again on 24.5.82 at about 7 P.M. Deobrat Sharma and Pinki Devi sprinkled her water on the complainant in order to kill her but she did not die, though she was hospitalise for about 7 days. Dharam Pal had also raped Malti Devi, a maid servant of the house on 9.5.82 which was also complained of and it had also caused annoyance to the accused.
3. This complaint of Rama Sharma was sent by the learned C.J.M, Patna, to Gandhi-maidan police station where it was registered on 18.6.82 as Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No.
540 of 1982 under sections 307, 376 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was investigated and then charge-sheet was submitted under the said sections against the said five accused persons. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of the learned Additional Session
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
