Judgment

Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, J.

This revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur, in case FIR No.81 dated 09.06.2020, registered under Section 304-B of IPC at Police Station Kulgahri, District Ferozepur, whereby petitioners have been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the statement of the deceased’s brother Malkiat Singh, inter alia on the allegations that her sister/the deceased, was subjected to mental as well as physical cruelty after marriage and soon before her death on demand of more dowry by Gursewak Singh/husband, and the petitioners, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased.

3. After lodging of the FIR against the three accused, the petitioners and their son, investigation of the case was assigned to the Investigation Officer. During investigation, an application was submitted by the petitioners’ nephew, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, to get the matter investigated by some senior police officer as the accused have been falsely implicated in the case. He marked the enquiry to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Rural, Ferozepur, who, based on an inquiry conducted at his own level into the case, declared the petitioners innocent. His report, dated 03.07.2020, has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. It is to the effect that the petitioners were not present at home at the time of the alleged incident, and were statedly implicated in the case on account of the exaggerated allegations levelled by the complainant on account of his sister’s death. Petitioner No.1 had gone to his brother’s house, along with his grandson, to enquire about his mother’s health; whereas, petitioner No.2 had gone to Ferozepur Cantonment, along with her nephew, in his car to get medicines. Therefore, it was found to be a case of false implication.

4. The Investigating Officer, in his report presented under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. found the petitioners innocent, and were kept in column 2. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that based on this enquiry report, Annexure P-3, the petitioners were found innocent and final report was presented by the Investigating Officer.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined Malkiat Singh (complainant/deceased’s brother) as PW3 and Darshan Singh (deceased’s father) as PW6. Both of them testified that the deceased, after marriage with the petitioners’ son, was residing with them in the matrimonial home. They also deposed about the dowry given in the marriage, and demands made by the petitioners, as also about the harassment meted out to the deceased soon before her death. Considering the application and the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 20.05.2022, summoned the petitioners as additional accused.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the trial Court has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as there is nothing to connect the petitioners with the alleged offences. He submits that both of them were not at home at the time of commission of alleged offences. The petitioners’ alibi duly stands established in the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, based upon which the petitioners have already been found innocent in the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. presented to the Court. Therefore, there is no basis to summon the petitioners as additional accused, and the impugned order is in violation of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others , 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 623.

7. Learned