( 1 ) THE petitioner in this revision petition assails the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 22nd Aug. 1988 whereby his application, raising legal objections in respect of the order of summoning of the petitioner, Subhash Chander, to face trial as an accused in the case, together with three others already committed to his court, passed on 23rd Sept. 1987, was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE facts succinctly put are as under : kusum, wife of the petitioner s elder brother Harish Chander, died by hanging herself from a ceiling fan on the night intervening 29th and 30th Aug. 1986 in the house of the accused persons. On the allegations that the deceased took this extreme step on account of constant harassment and maltreatment on the part of her husband, husband s brother (petitioner herein) and husband s parents, a case was registered on the basis of the statement of Kusum s father, Kamal Nain Sehgal, vide FIR No. 514 dated 30th August, 1986 at Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi for offences under Ss. 498-A/306 read with S. 34 IPC.

( 3 ) AFTER investigation, the police submitted final report to the Court but whereas the other three co-accused namely, Harish Chander and his parents : Smt. Sumitra Devi and Ram Saran Dass were sent up for trial; name of the petitioner was mentioned only in col. 2 of the report submitted u/s. 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short the Code ).

( 4 ) THE magistrate ordered summoning of the accused persons on presentation of the challan, and thereafter nothing that one of the offences with which the accused persons were charged, namely, S. 306 IPC, being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, passed on order of committal of the accused to the said Court. After the case was received in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, on being marked to him by the Sessions Judge, he posted the case for 23rd Sept. 1987 for arguments on charge. However, on the adjourned date, when the court was to consider the question of charge, against the persons sent up for trial, the Addl. Public Prosecutor attached to the court, made a statement orally, and also by means of an application that Subhash Chander, whose name had been shown in Col. 2 of the final report, be also summoned as an accused, as there were statements of witnesses equally implicating him, respecting allegations of cruelty, and harassment towards the deceased Kusum. On being satisfied, that there existed material against this person also for offences under Section 498-A/306/34 IPC, an order of summoning him to face trial was passed.

( 5 ) AFTER putting in appearance, the petitioner raised objections as to the legality of the order of summoning on the contention that since he was not sent up for trial by the police, the court could not exercise any power to summon him on the strength of statements recorded during investigation by the police.

( 6 ) IT was further contended on his behalf that the proper stage to summon this person mentioned in column 2 of the final report was only after trial had commenced and evidence has been recorded in court, and in case any incriminating material had come out, against him so as to appear to the court that he could also be one of the offenders, and then this power could be exercised in the manner envisaged by S. 319 of the Code.

( 7 ) THE matter appears to have been argued at length before the trial court, inasmuch as the Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as the complainant s counsel, controverted the objection raised by petitioner s counsel, in this regard. The court by detailed order recorded on 22nd Aug. 1988, rejected the contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner and held that he had ample powers to summon the petitioner whose name was shown in col. 2 of the challan, on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation and thus decided to proceed further against all the accused persons, including the present petitioner. By separate order recorded on the same day, he found prima fa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document