The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and requires substantial evidence. Generalized accusations without specificity do not meet the threshold for criminal liability under Section 498-A IPC.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. By way of filing the instant revision petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by learned District Judge Cadre, learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 51/2014 (State vs. Deepak Soni), whereby the learned trial Court has partly allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant and has proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. The impugned order is assailed as being illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law, having been passed without appreciating the settled legal principles governing the exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and in the absence of any strong, cogent and convincing evidence warranting the summoning of the petitioners as additional accused.

Facts of the Case

2. That the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that on 02.07.2014, the complainant Bhagwan Ram lodged a written report alleging that his daughter Santosh, who had been married to Deepak for about ten years and was blessed with three daughters, was residing in her matrimonial home in a joint family with her husband, father-in-law Bhagirath, mother-in-law, brother-in-law Rajesh and his wife Rajni. It was alleged that Deepak and his father were habitual gamblers and had incurred financial losses, due to which, for the preceding 2–3 months, Santosh was allegedly subjected to pressure and harassment by her husband and in-laws for bringing a sum of ₹5 lakhs from her parental home. It was further stated that despite assurances given by the complainant to make efforts to meet the demand, the pressure allegedly continued. On the morning of 02.07.2014, information was received through a relative that Santosh had been found hanging, whereafter the complainant reached the hospital and saw her dead body in the mortuary, alleging that she had been beaten, murdered and subsequently hanged to give the incident the colour of suicide.

3. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered under Sections 302, 498A and 143 IPC and investigation commenced. Upon completion of investigation, including multiple rounds thereof, the police filed a charge-sheet only against Deepak, finding no material against the remaining family members. The case was committed for trial to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner, where charges were framed against Deepak and trial proceeded. During the course of trial, after recording statements of the complainant and other witnesses, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved seeking summoning of the remaining family members for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 302 and 201 IPC. The said application was opposed by the proposed accused. However, vide order dated 13.04.2017, the learned trial court partly allowed the application and took cognizance against the present petitioners only for the offence under Section 498A IPC, which order is assailed in the present revision petition.

4. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

Observations and Reasons

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and has carefully perused the entire material available on record, including the First Information Report, statements recorded during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the charge-sheet submitted after investigation, the evidence recorded by the learne