Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 192 (PNJ)

Jarnail Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2004-02-19

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
Judgment 1. The petitioner Jarnail Kaur, who is aged about 66 years and who is real Against order of Karnail Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, D/- 13-5-2003 Mausi of the deceased, has filed the instant criminal revision against the order dated 13-5-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which she has been summoned under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for facing the trial under Section 306, IPC. 2. In the instant case, an FIR was registered by the father of the deceased, Surjit Singh, on the allegation that his daughter, Harpal Kaur was married to Jagrup Singh and she was being harassed by her in-laws family for putting pressure to bring more dowry. It was also alleged that the petitioner, who is the real Mausi of the deceased was a mediator in the marriage and she was also compelling the deceased to bring more dowry. Because of the demand of dowry and the harassment, his daughter was coerced to commit suicide. 3. During the police investigation, the petitioner was found to be innocent and, therefore, her name was kept in column No. 2. However, the challan was presented against Jagrup Singh (husband) and his mother Balbir Kaur 4. After framing of the charge against Jagrup Singh and Balbir Kaur under section 306 IPC, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Surjit Singh, complainant. In his statement, the complainant stated that Jagrup Singh, Balbir Kaur and Jarnail Kaur demanded Rs. two lacs as a dowry and on that account, started maltreating his daughter Harpal Kaur. His daughter had told him in detail about the maltreatment meted out to her by Jagrup Singh, Balbir Kaur and Jarnail Kaur. It has also come in the statement of P.W. 1 that Jarnail Kaur, Balbir Kaur and Jagrup Singh told him that they did not want to keep his daughter Harpal Kaur at their house and she can go anywhere and die, and in her absence they can live conveniently. On the basis of the said statement, an application was filed by the complainant to summon the, petitioner as an accused. The said application has been allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 13-5-2003 while observing that there is sufficient evidence against Jarnail Kaur to proceed as an accused in this case as she along with her coaccused compelled the deceased to commit suicide while demanding more dowry and by maltreating her. The said application has been allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 13-5-2003 while observing that there is sufficient evidence against Jarnail Kaur to proceed as an accused in this case as she along with her coaccused compelled the deceased to commit suicide while demanding more dowry and by maltreating her. This order has been challenged in the instant criminal revision. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has npthing to do with the alleged offence. She is not a member of the family of in-laws of the deceased Harpal Kaur. Therefore, there is no question of asking the deceased to bring more dowry. Rather, the petitioner is the real Maust of the deceased. She was only a mediator. The complainant was having grudge against the petitioner because she being the mediator in the marriage and because of the bad relations between both the families, she has been falsely implicated. The learned counsel further submitted that in the detailed investigation conducted by the Superintendent of Police City, Bathinda, the petitioner was found innocent and being unnecessarily dragged in the present case. The petitioner was also not living with the family of the in-laws of the deceased wife. He submitted that in the rarest case, the trial Court should invoke the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. if from the material produced before the Court during trial, it clearly emerge that the person to be summoned is really involved in the crime. In the instant case, only on the statement of P.W. 1 (complainant), who merely reiterated his earlier statement on the basis of which the FIR has been lodged, the petitioner cannot be summoned to face the trial. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the statement given by the complainant Surjit Singh is sufficient to summon the petitioner as an additional accused. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case in my opinion, this petition deserves to be allowed. The legal position regarding summoning an additional accused to face the trial under Section 319, Cr.P.C. is well settled. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case in my opinion, this petition deserves to be allowed. The legal position regarding summoning an additional accused to face the trial under Section 319, Cr.P.C. is well settled. The basic requirement for invoking this section, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Michael Machado V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation (2000) 2 Rec Cri R 75 : (2000 Cri LJ 1706) is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during the trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt from the evidence about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence and second is that for such offence that other person could as well as tried along with the already arraigned accused. But it always remains the discretion of the Court as the legislation has used the words "the court may proceed against such person". The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised by the Court only to achieve the criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against the person whenever it comes across the evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. Ajudicia l exercise is called for. Keeping a conspectus of the case including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then. 8. In Dr. Sant Singh V/s. State of Punjab (2002) 2 Rec Cri R 719, it has been held by this Court that the Court has to use the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. sparingly and primarily to advance the cause of criminal justice but not as a handle at the hands of the complainant to cause harassment to the person who is not involved in the commission of the crime. Before exercising the discretionary power, the Court has to apply its mind on the evidence produced by the prosecution to reach the conclusion whether from the evidence It appears that the accused have committed the offence. Before exercising the discretionary power, the Court has to apply its mind on the evidence produced by the prosecution to reach the conclusion whether from the evidence It appears that the accused have committed the offence. 9. In the instant case after going through the statement of P.W. 1, it cannot be said that the petitioner was with the party for demanding dowry from the deceased wife. The complainant in his statement has alleged that "Jarnail Kaur who was mediator of Harpal Kaur told me that we have humiliated them by giving less dowry as compared to dowry given to Rachhpal Kaur and stated that she will see how my daughter Harpal Kaur is settled in the matrimonial house. Jagrup Singh, Balbir Kaur and Jarnail Kaur demanded Rs. two lacs more as dowry and started maltreating Harpal Kaur." 10. From the above statement, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot be summoned to face the trial under Section 306, IPC. The trial Court has passed the impugned order wholly without application of mind and the same is not sustainable. 11. In view of the aforesaid, this criminal revision is allowed and the impuged order dated 13-5-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside.