Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 270
2011(1) Law Herald (P&H) 757
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010
Harpreet Kaur alias Maane
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 24/01/2011}
For the Petitioner:Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab.
IMPORTANT POINT
Summoning of additional accused--The mere statement of the complainant ipso facto cannot form the basis of summon u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319 & 482--Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.376 & 120B--Rape--Quashing of Complaint--Complainant who was a married woman, eloped with the brother of the petitioner out of her own free will--Brother of the petitioner did not get married to her in spite of the promise to marry her--Sections 476 and 120B of the IPC not attracted qua the petitioner--Order summoning the petitioner and her father u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C. on the statement of the complainant not justified and quashed.
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319--Summoning of additional accused--The mere statement of the complainant ipso facto cannot form the basis of summon u/s 319 of the Cr.P.C.
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319--Summoning of additional accused--For summoning a person u/s 319, one of the tests being whether evidence on record is such which should reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned.
Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, J.:- This order shall dispose of Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010 and Crl. Rev. No.1075 of 2010. Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010 has been filed by Harpreet Kaur alias Maane, who is the sister of the main accused, whereas, Crl. Rev. No.1075 of 2010 has been filed by Pritam Singh, father of the main accused.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Rev. No.492 of 2010.
3. FIR No.108 dated 02.05.2007 under Sections 376, 120-B IPC at Police Station Payal, Ludhiana was registered by the complainant- Rupinder Kaur against the brother-Satjeet Singh of the present petitioner. The petitioner was found innocent during investigation. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved summoning the accused Pritam Singh, father of Satjeet Singh in Crl. Rev. No.1075 of 2010 and Harpreet Kaur alias Maane, sister of Satjeet Singh in the present petition. The petitioner in the present case i.e. Harpreet Kaur alias Maane is a married lady and is a housewife having one small child. The husband of the petitioner is gainfully employed as Sepoy in Indian Army having No.15145923Y GNR (DS), Narinder Singh and is presently posted in Faridkot. The allegations against the main accused Satjeet Singh, brother of the present petitioner is that he gave sleeping tablets to the complainant who administered the same to her in laws at 3 o’ clock A.M and ran away with Satjeet Singh in his Alto car on 14.03.2007. However, subsequently the said Satjeet Singh did not get married to the complainant. The present case was registered on 02.05.2007 i.e after 01 month and 17 days. In the present case, the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Rupinder Kaurcomplainant was recorded on 03.05.2007. There is not even a whisper about the name of the petitioner. However, the Investigating Agency gave one application dated 19.05.2007 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana for recording the statement of the girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In pursuance of the same, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class recorded the statement of the complainant on 19.05.2007 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Even in the statement of the complainant, the name of the petitioner does not find mention whatsoever. Since, no allegation was proved against the petitioner, the police submitted the challan against Satjeet Singh and his mother Ranjeet Kaur, whereas, the present petitioner-Harpreet Kaur and her father Pritam Singh were placed in column No.2 of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
4. On 22.05.2009, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved for summoning the petitioner along with her father Pritam Singh, who is an old man. The only evidence before the Court was the statement of the complainant. The said statement is only a repetition of the allegations. The mere statement of the complainant ipso-facto cannot form the basis of summon the persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C. As per the said statement, the only allegation against the present petitioner is that she asked the complainant on 15.03.2007 to stay for 2/3 days and thereafter, promised to solemnize her marriage with her brother. The allegations against Satjit Singh is that he had taken her to his house at Bilaspur on the asking of his parents.
5. However, from the above facts, it is evident that the complainant had willingly accompanied Satjeet Singh. The fact that he ultimately did not marry her, cannot make out an offence under Section 376 IPC. If at all, it may attract Section 420 IPC. However, the petitioners have not been summoned under the said Section.
6. In Michael Machado and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75, considering the basic requirements of Section 319 of the Code, Court said:
“The basic requirement for invoking the above Section is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, had committed an of
