Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and requires strong and cogent evidence against a person, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) - Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 17.09.2022 wherein the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been declined.

2. As per the facts of the case, the FIR in this case was lodged by Jagmal Singh. The sum and substance of the allegations made by the complainant-petitioner were that his marriage was solemnized 28 years ago. Out of the wedlock, he was blessed with two sons and two daughters. He has constructed a shop at home where his wife Poonam (deceased) used to sell the wood. Rakam Singh, who is their neighbour also had the shop of wood and as both were carrying out same type of business, there was a rivalry between both the families. Rakam Singh, his wife and his sons namely, Sachin and Monu quaralled with them in which they were beaten by Rakam Singh and his family. As the matter was reported to the police, Rakam Singh and his family had assaulted and beaten his wife Poonam and she was threatened to be killed, on account of which, his wife was seriously disturbed. Resultantly, his wife jumped before the train and committed suicide. It was alleged that his wife was harassed by Rakam Singh, his wife Babli and sons Mohan and Sachin and hence, she committed suicide. A request was made to take legal action against all the accused. On registration of the FIR, investigation commenced and during investigation, the investigating agency filed the challan qua Rakam Singh. However, the allegations against wife of Rakam Singh and both the sons were not substantiated and hence, they were kept in Column No.2. During trial, the complainant appeared before the trial Court and reiterated his allegations on the basis of which, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning respondents No.3 to 5. However, learned trial Court declined the same vide impugned order dated 17.09.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the complainant had lodged the FIR wherein all the four accused were specifically named as the accused Rakam Singh and his family used to quarrel with the family of the deceased and she always used to remain in depression. She was beaten by Rakam Singh and his family members i.e. private respondents, on account of which, she jumped before the train and committed suicide. He has submitted that the investigating agencies did not investigate the case in free and fair manner and thus, illegally declared them innocent during the investigation. He has submitted that PW-1 namely, Rohini deposed specifically that Rakam Singh and his family members i.e. respondents had given beating to the deceased and she was threatened to vacate the plot, otherwise, they would send her husband and her sons behind bars. On the basis of the substantial deposition of PW-1, application under Seciton 319 Cr.P.C. was filed which has been illegally declined by the trial Court without adverting the evidence on record. He has submitted that PW-1 is the eye-witness who gave ocular account of the occurrence before the trial Court, however, the trial Court failed to appreciate the same and thus, drawn a wrong conclusion in declining the same. He submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. be allowed.

4. Heard. Evidently, both the parties are neighbours and from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there are dispute between both the parties since long. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that Rakam Singh had got challaned the complainant and his family members under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C and the petitioner had also filed a case against them in the Court. On registration of the FIR, a thorough investigation was carried out and on the conclusion of the same, all three respondents i.e respondents No.3 to 5 were declared innocent. For appreciation of applic