Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 919 (PNJ)

Siri Ram v. State Of Punjab

2000-08-14

V.M.JAIN

body2000
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482,Cr.P.C filed by the accused petitioner Siri Ram, seeking quashment of the order dated 23.3.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate, ordering the summoning of the present petitioner as an accused exercising the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are that Brij Lal (father of Smt. Parwati) had lodged FIR No. 176 dated 14.3.1997 under Section 498-A/34, IPC by moving the application {copy Annexure P-2) before the SHO seeking registration of a case against Dalbir, Ram Kumar, Smt. Rukma and Siri Ram. After the registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and after the competion of the investigation the challan was put up in the Court against three accused namely, Dalbir, Ram Kumar and Smt. Rukma, while the name of fourth person namely, Siri Ram petitioner was put in Column No. 2 of the report under Section 173. After the charge was framed against the three accused named above, the statement of Brij Lal, complainant was recorded by the learned Magistrate as PW 1. After the statement of P.W. 1 Brij Lal was recorded by the learned Magistrate, an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning Siri Ram as an accused in this case. This application was contested by the accused. After hearing both the sides, the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 22.3.1999 accepted the said application and ordered the summoning of present petitioner Siri Ram as an accused in this case alongwith othr co-accused. It is against this order dated 22.3.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate that Siri Ram petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. seeking the quashment of the said order of summoning dated 22.3.1999. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. 4. Learned Counsel appearing the petitioner submitted before me that the petitioner is only "Jeth" of Smt. Parwati and that he had nothing to do with the maltreatment of Smt. Parwati by her husband. Reliance was placed on 2000(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 247=11 (2000) DMC 251,. Santosh Bhardwaj v. U.T. Administration; and 1989(1) Recent Criminal Repots 1, Smt. Chand Rani and Ors., v. Smt. Sunita Rani. 5. Reliance was placed on 2000(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 247=11 (2000) DMC 251,. Santosh Bhardwaj v. U.T. Administration; and 1989(1) Recent Criminal Repots 1, Smt. Chand Rani and Ors., v. Smt. Sunita Rani. 5. It was further submitted that even if PW-1 Brij Lal the petitioner as one of the persons who had maltreated his daughter Smt. Parwati, yet no case was made out for ordering his summoning as an accused in this case, especially when he was found innocent by the police during investigation of the case. Reliance was placed on 2000(2) Recent Criminal Reports 75 (SC)=I (2000) CCR 288 (SC)=II (2000) SLT 488, Michael Mochado and Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record, I find no merit in this petition, which is liable to be dismissed. 7. Exhibit P-2 is the copy of the application given by Brij Lal, father of Smt. Parwati to.the police. The said application was submitted by Brij Lal complainant for initiating action against Dalbir, Ram Kumar, Smt. Rukma and Siri Ram. In the said application, it was alleged by Brij Lal complainant that he had married his daughter Smt. Parwati about seven months back with accused Dalbir and had given sufficient dowry, but in spite of that the abovementioned persons used to maltreat her for having brought insufficient dowry. It was further alleged that demand was made for scooter, a fridge and gold, and threats were given that if the demand was not met within one month, second marriage of Dalbir shall be performed. It was further alleged that matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa who had directed the SHO is take action against the accused. It was alleged that efforts were made through the Biradri Panchayat, but no avail. It was alleged that when the complainant had gone to the accused and requested them to keep his daughter with them, again the demand for a scooter, a fridge and gold was made as the precondition for keeping her with them. 8. After the registration of the FIR on the said written complaint of Brij Lal, the police investigated the case and found Siri Ran petitioner as innocent and his name was put in Column No. 2. 8. After the registration of the FIR on the said written complaint of Brij Lal, the police investigated the case and found Siri Ran petitioner as innocent and his name was put in Column No. 2. After the challan was put in the Court, charges were framed against the three accused nemely, Dalbir, Ram Kumar and Smt. Rukma. Thereafter the statement of PW-1 Brij Lal complainant was recorded in the Court. The accused were also given opportunity to, cross-examine him. In the said statement Brij Lal complainant again reiterated that the three accused who were present in the Court alongwith Siri Ram (Jeth) all were unhappy with the dowry and they used to give beating to his daughter Parwati with lathis for having brought insuficient dowry and that the demand was made by these aforementioned persons for a scooter, fridge and gold. During cross-examination he stated that in the application moved by him before the police he had stated that all the four persons were unhapply with the dowry and that they used to give her beating, though in the said application he had not got recorded that they used to give her beating with lathis. 9. After the said statement was made by PW 1 complainant, application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned Magistrate for summoning Siri Ram as an accused in this case. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 22.3.1999 ordered the summoning of the present petitioner Siri Ram as an accused in this case, placing reliance on the statement of PW 1 Brij Lal. In my opinion, after going through the evidence of PW 1 Brij Lal, it could not said that no case for summoning of Siri Ram petitioner as an accused was made out in this case. This is especially so when specific allegations were made against him and other co-accused with regard to maltreatment on account of insufficient dowry. The two authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, 2000(2) Recent Criminal Reports 247 (supra), and 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 1 (supra), in my opinion, would have no application to the facts of the present case. In ,2000(2) Recent Criminal Reports 247 (supra), the proceedings against husband, sister and her husband were quashed by this Court upholding that there were no allegations of demand of dowry against them either directly or indirectly. 10. In ,2000(2) Recent Criminal Reports 247 (supra), the proceedings against husband, sister and her husband were quashed by this Court upholding that there were no allegations of demand of dowry against them either directly or indirectly. 10. In 1989(1) Recent Criminal Reports 1 (supra), proceedings under Sections 498-A and 406, IPC against all relatives other than the husband were quashed on the ground that no specific allegations have been made against them about entrustment of any specific article and only a bald assertion has been made that the accused persons had turned her out and also had kept the articles in their custody. In my opinion, the law laid down in both these authorities would be of no help to the petitioner, so far as the facts of the present case are concerned. 11. Authority 2000(2) Recent Criminal Reports 75 (supra), relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, would be of no help to the petitioner in the present case. In the reported case, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that under Section 319, Cr.P.C the Court is given power to proceed against a person. The discretionary power as conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on Court to proceed against other persons. It was further held by their Lordships as under: "14. The Court while deciding whether to invoke the power under Section 319 of the Code, must address itself about the other constraints, imposed by the first limb of Sub-section (4), that proceedings in respect of newly added persons shall be commenced afresh and the witness re-examined. The whole proceedings must be recommenced from the beginning of the trial, summon the witnesses once again and examine them and cross-examine them in order to reach the stage where it had reached earlier. If the witnesses already examined are quite large in number the Court must seriously consider whether the object sought to be achieved by such exercise is worth wasting the whole labour already undertaken. Unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned we would say that the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action." 12. Unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned we would say that the Court should refrain from adopting such a course of action." 12. In the reported case, the statement of three witnesses had already been recorded when the orders were passed for summoning other persons as accused. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the said case, their Lordships of the Supreme Court set aside the order of summoning passed by the Magistrate. However, in the present case only the statement of PW 1 Brij Lal complainant had so far been recorded when the application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was filed and the order of summoning was passed. Furthermore from the statement of Brij Lai PW1 (complainant) a prima facie case for summoning the petitioner as an accused is definitely made out. From the said statement, the case of the present petitioner would be at par with the case of the other three accused who are already facing trial before the Magistrate. At this stage, it could not be said after reading the statement of PW 1 complainant Brij Lal that the case of the prosecution would not end in conviction. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in ordering the summoning of the petitioner as an accused in this case. 13. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. However, anything stated above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.