Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 3381
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Nirmala - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and Others - Respondent
Criminal Misc. No. M-4456 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-03-2016
For the Appellant :Bhupesh Dogra, Advocate.
The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C to summon additional accused should be used sparingly and based on compelling reasons, and vague or casual statements are not sufficient grounds for summoning.
Headnote:
Section 319 Cr.P.C - Summoning of Additional Accused - [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE] - [Section 319]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to set aside orders dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C to summon additional accused in a case involving allegations of dowry demand and misappropriation of istridhan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence and statements did not warrant summoning the additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C as there was no new evidence or material to establish their involvement in the offense.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should exercise its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C to summon additional accused based on the evidence and statements presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C should be used sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist, and that vague and casual statements cannot be the basis for summoning additional accused.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
Crl. Misc. No.9576 of 2016
1. This application has been moved for placing on record the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
2. Criminal Misc. Application is allowed and the final report is taken on record.
Crl. Misc. No.M-4456 of 2016
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside the impugned orders dated 30.10.2015 and 19.01.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class and Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, respectively, whereby, the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C as well as the revision petition have been dismissed.
2. On the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, FIR No.366 dated 25.08.2011 was registered against respondents No.2 to 5 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC. Certain allegations of demand of dowry and mis-appropriation of istridhan were alleged against Yogesh (brother-in-law), Sarita (sister-in-law), Hem Kishore (husband) and Usha (mother-in-law) by the complainant-petitioner. Charges under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC were framed only against two accused. Respondents no.2 and 3 were found innocent. On recording of statement of the complainant, certain allegations were alleged against respondents No.2 and 3. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved by the complainant through prosecution for summoning them as an additional accused as they were also involved in the commission of offence along with other accused, who are facing trial. Reply to the application was filed. The said application was dismissed on 30.10.2015 by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rewari and the same was challenged by way of filing revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, which was also dismissed vide Order dated 19.01.2016.
3. Aggrieved by aforesaid orders, the present revision petition has been filed by raising various grounds.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations were levelled against respondents No.2 and 3 with specific roles but they were declared innocent wrongly by the Investigating Agency. Even in the statement of the complainant, not only specific allegations have been levelled but specific roles were also attributed but still, the application has been dismissed and revision filed against the said order has also been dismissed. Learned counsel also submits that on the basis of allegations against the persons sought to be summoned, there were chances for their conviction and the same has not been considered.
5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned orders as well as other documents available on the file.
6. Admittedly, respondents No.2 and 3, who were sought to be summoned, were found innocent during investigation and were kept in column No.2. Accused-Usha, who is facing trial, is not the real mother-in-law of the complainant-petitioner. The mother of accused- Hem Kishore had earlier died and his father got re-married with accused-Usha. Respondents no.2 and 3 i.e Yogesh and Sarita are children of Usha. At the time of alleged occurrence, both the children were in the age group of 11 to 14 years. During investigation, they were found innocent. The only allegation against them is that they also used to support other accused and taunt the complainant for bringing less dowry and demanded Honda City car. The allegations of giving beating to the complainant were there, whereas, there was no medico legal report regarding any injury on the person of complainant. Moreover, accused-Hem Kishore (husband) and Usha (mother-in-law) of the complainant are already facing trial. During investigation also, no evidence was collected against them. It was found that Yogesh was about 11/12 years and Sarita was 13/14 years of age. No other new evidence was brought on record against the persons sought to be summoned.
7. As per provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Summoning Court has to be satisfied from the evidence led by the complainant party
