Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 726 (PNJ)

Khazana Ram v. State of Haryana etc.

2004-07-19

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - In a case bearing F.I.R. No. 92 dated March 26, 2002 under Section 304-B/406/498-A of Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Samalkha, Kitaba son of Sardara and Sheela Devi daughter of Sohan Lal (respondent No. 2) were not challaned by the police during investigation as the investigating agency found them innocent. 2. During trial, an application was moved under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code for summoning the aforesaid person. The said application was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Panipat on March 29, 2003 observing therein that there is no ground for summoning Kitaba and Sheela Devi. 3. Khazana Ram-complainant has filed the present revision petition against the aforesaid impugned order qua Sheela Devi-respondent No. 2 whereas no grouse is shown against non-summoning of Kitaba. 4. Pursuant to the notice, Mr. Dhankar has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1, whereas no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2, despite the fact that the service is complete. 5. I have heard Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhankar, learned A.A.G., Haryana, and with their assistance have gone through the entire record. 6. Mr. Rathore contends that so far as Kitaba is concerned, he was the mediator and his role is over after the marriage. But the finding of the trial Court qua Sheela Devi is not sustainable as she has been specifically named by the complainant in the F.I.R. She along with her co-accused used to give taunts to the deceased. As per the allegations, Sheela Devi had also given beatings to the deceased on account of dowry. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention to the statement of Khazana Ram, who was examined as one of the prosecution witnesses before the application was moved for summoning under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code 7. The observation of the trial Court is that Sheela Devi is admittedly married sister-in-law of Krishan, husband of the deceased. She is residing separately with her husband and other family members for the last many years and she could not be a beneficiary of any demand of dowry. 8. I do not find any fault with the observations made by the learned trial Court. During investigation, Sheela Devi has been found innocent. She is residing separately with her husband and other family members for the last many years and she could not be a beneficiary of any demand of dowry. 8. I do not find any fault with the observations made by the learned trial Court. During investigation, Sheela Devi has been found innocent. No doubt that this fact, by itself, would not give a clean chit to Sheela Devi, as it would amount to succumbing to the sweet will of the investigating agency, but keeping in view the entirety of facts of the instant case, especially status of Sheela Devi-respondent No. 2, who is married sister-in-law of the deceased and is staying separately, she could not possibly be a party to all what is said and alleged. Sheela Devi is residing in Vikas Nagar, Shiv Mandir, Panipat, while the husband of the deceased is residing at village Patti Kalyana. These are two different places. 9. In Dr. Sant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002(2) RCR(Crl.) 719, this Court while dealing with the scope of Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code observed that the Court has to use power under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code sparingly and primarily to advance the cause of criminal justice but not as a handle at the instance of the complainant to cause harassment to the persons, who are actually not involved in the commission of crime. The aforesaid case was also a matrimonial dispute in which certain persons were summoned on the basis of an application moved under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code by the wife on account of omnibus allegations to rope in all the accused and consequently, order of the Court summoning the additional accused was quashed. 10. In Satish Kumar and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 335, this Court while relying upon Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 75 (SC) has observed that quality of evidence before the Court should be of such a type that the Court could even be hopeful that there was reasonable prospect of newly adduced accused being convicted. 11. 11. With regard to the facts of the instant case and following the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby Sheela Devi respondent No. 2 has not been summoned, does not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, this revision is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.