Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(UK) 300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Akbar and others - Revisionists
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 329 of 2017
Decided On : 02-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Revisionist :Mr. Siddharth Sah Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A, Kurban Ali, Advocate

The central legal point established in the judgment is that summoning a person under Section 319 of the Code requires strong evidence and a degree of satisfaction beyond a prima facie case, especially in cases involving matrimonial disputes and dowry-related offenses.

Headnote:
Section 319 - Criminal Procedure Code - 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506, 307, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT]
Fact of the Case:

The case involves a revision challenging the order allowing an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to summon the revisionists to face trial for various offenses including those under IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The informant alleged torture, harassment, and attempted murder by her husband and in-laws due to dowry demands.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence against the revisionists was general and vague, lacking the required degree of satisfaction for summoning under Section 319 of the Code. It concluded that the application under Section 319 of the Code should have been rejected, and the impugned order was set aside.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to summon the revisionists under Section 319 of the Code, the interpretation of the degree of satisfaction required, and the maintainability of the revision against the interlocutory order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that summoning a person under Section 319 of the Code requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of complicity, and the degree of satisfaction should be more than a prima facie case. It also highlighted the need for specific instances of involvement in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, rejecting the application filed under Section 319 of the Code by the informant.

JUDGMENT :

The challenge in this revision is made to the order dated 26.09.2017, passed in Sessions Trial No. 199 of 2013, State Vs. Muslim and others, by the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the case”). By it, an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) filed by the respondent no.3 Smt. Sitara (“the informant”) has been allowed and the revisionists have been summoned to face the trial for the offences 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506, 307, 120B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 alongwith existing accused.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The case has its origin in an FIR lodged on 26.03.2013 by the informant. According to it, the informant and Muslim were married about eight years prior to lodging of the FIR. The in-laws of the informant were not happy with the dowry given. The informant was tortured, harassed for and in connection with the demand of dowry. The revisionist and others harassed and demanded additional dowry. The husband of the informant had extra marital relations. The FIR is quite in detail. It also records that on 25.03.2013, in the morning about 6:00, the informant was tried to be killed by her husband by pouring kerosene oil on her. In fact, the FIR records that the husband of the informant had tried to set her ablaze. The revisionists also attacked her. It is this FIR, in which, initially, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against three persons, namely, Muslim, Mumtaz and Intelab, but subsequently, charge sheet was also submitted against Anwari, Farzana and Gulshan. They were facing trial in the case.

4. It may be noted that although, FIR was also lodged against the revisionists, but they were not chargesheeted.

5. At the stage of taking cognizance, the informant filed an application before the court with the prayer that the revisionists may also be summoned and cognizance be also taken against them, as well. This application of the informant was rejected on 24.08.2013 by the court of Judicial Magistrate 2nd, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 3629 of 2013, State Vs. Anwari and others. This order dated 24.08.2013 was further challenged by the informant in Criminal Revision No. 395 of 2013, which was rejected on 15.03.2014, by the court of 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar. That chapter had then closed.

6. In the case, the statement of PW1 Smt. Sitara, the informant was recorded on 24.11.2016. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 of the Code was filed by the informant, which was objected to by the existing accused. By the impugned order, the revisionists have been summoned. This order is impugned herein.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionists would submit that the revisionists were named in the FIR, but the Investigating Officer did not find sufficient material to charge sheet them. It is argued that the revisionist no.2 Smt. Farmani is sister-in-law of the informant Smt. Sitara; revisionist no. 2 Smt. Farmani is married and she stays in an another village with her husband Samoon, who is the revisionist no.3. The revisionist No.1 Akbar is father-in-law of Smt. Farmani, the revisionist no.2. It is argued that they have been implicated just for harassment. Learned counsel would submit that merely on the basis of the statement of PW1 Smt. Sitara, there are less reason to summon the revisionists to face trial with the existing accused.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92.

9. In the case of Hardeep Singh (supra), in fact, various questions were formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to the application of Section 319 of the Code. Question No. (iv) reads “what is a degree of satisfaction required for invoking power under Section 319 of the Code” and in paragraph 106, t