Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1379 (PNJ)

Kirandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab

2012-10-04

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - Crl.M.No.58783 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.R.No.3023 of 2012 1. The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 5.7.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which application filed by prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning present petitioner as an accused to face trial alongwith coaccused already facing trial, was allowed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which petitioner has been summoned to face trial. 3. Brief allegations against petitioner-accused, as per statement got recorded by Santokh Singh, complainant, are that sister-in-law of present petitioner Kirandeep Kaur was married to Rajwant Singh alias Raju son of complainant Santokh Singh and there was matrimonial dispute between Rajwant Singh and his wife, namely, Harjit Kaur alias Anju, i.e., sister-in-law of present petitioner. On 16.5.2011, Harjit Kaur alias Anju left the matrimonial home and hence, Balbir Singh, co-accused and his son Hardeep Singh, i.e., husband of present petitioner, and the petitioner reached the house of complainant. Hardeep Singh was having brick in his hands while Balbir Singh was holding a helmet in his hands. Balbir Singh raised lalkara that Rajwant Singh should be taught a lesson for maltreating Harjeet Kaur alias Anju. Present petitioner-accused Kirandeep Kaur caught hold of Rajwant Singh by his neck, whereas Hardeep Singh gave brick blow on the head of Rajwant Singh. Balbir Singh caused injury with helmet to Rajwant Singh. Alarm was raised. Other villagers gathered there. Injured was removed to the hospital from where he was referred to DMC Hospital Ludhiana. However, on the way he succumbed to the injuries. 4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that she was found innocent by the police during investigation and hence, she was kept in column no.2 of the challan. Hence, it is contended that learned trial Court has committed illegality in allowing application of the prosecution merely on the statement of complainant Santokh Singh. He has also placed reliance upon Hukam Chand and another v. State of Haryana and others, [2007(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1185] : 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 141 and Sidharth Shanker @ Mannu v. State of Haryana 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 876. 5. He has also placed reliance upon Hukam Chand and another v. State of Haryana and others, [2007(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1185] : 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 141 and Sidharth Shanker @ Mannu v. State of Haryana 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 876. 5. Law on the point has been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Suman v. State of Rajasthan and others, [2009(6) Law Herald (SC) 3902] : 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 908. In that case as well application was moved for summoning sister-in-law of the complainant on the basis of statement of complainant which was on the same line as statement made before the police. Relevant paragraphs of the same read as under:- “15. In view of the settled legal position as above, we hold that a person who is named in the first information report or complaint with the allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not launch prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if from the evidence collected/produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the Court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which he can be tried with other accused. As a corollary, we hold that the process issued against the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be quashed only on the ground that even though she was named in the complaint, the police did not file chargesheet against her. xx xx xx xx xx 17. In the light of the above, we shall now consider whether the learned Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance against the appellant under Section 498-A IPC or the satisfaction recorded by him for issuing process against the appellant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is vitiated by any legal infirmity and the learned Sessions Judge and High Court committed an error by refusing to quash the order passed by him. In the complaint filed by her, respondent No.2 alleged that after one week of the marriage, her mother-in-law - Rukmani Devi and nanad - Suman (the appellant herein) told her that in the marriage, items like scooter, fridge, air-conditioner etc. In the complaint filed by her, respondent No.2 alleged that after one week of the marriage, her mother-in-law - Rukmani Devi and nanad - Suman (the appellant herein) told her that in the marriage, items like scooter, fridge, air-conditioner etc. have not been given and the marriage party was not served well; that mother-in-law - Rukmani Devi and nanad –Suman forcibly took the complainant to a lady doctor and got implanted Copper-T so that she may not give birth to any child; that nanad - Suman started instigating the husband of the complainant either on phone or otherwise and thereupon, he not only used to assault, but also humiliate and torture the complainant; that on 7.4.2002 the husband gave beating with the belan and nanad - Suman snatched her hair and forcibly removed the rings. In her statement made before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 reiterated all the allegations. The father and mother of respondent No.2 and 4 other persons, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in harassing respondent No.2 and instigating her husband to inflict torture upon her. Despite this, the police did not file charge-sheet against the appellant thinking that she had no occasion to make demand for dowry or harass respondent No.2 because she was living with her husband, Mahendra Pal at Bikaner. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 again made specific allegations against the appellant. While deciding the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate noticed the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the complaint that her mother-in-law, Smt. Rukmani Devi and sister-in-law, Suman had castigated her for insufficient dowry and subjected her to physical and mental harassment and that the sister-in-law had instigated her husband to inflict physical torture, which were supported by the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate further noted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the complainant has clearly spelt out the role played by the appellant in the matter of demand of dowry, physical and mental harassment and the fact that the complainant had made a specific mention about this in the letters written to her parents and opined that prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the appellant. Therefore, it must be held that the learned Judicial Magistrate had objectively considered the entire matter and judiciously exercised discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the appellant. Although at one stage, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision filed by the appellant and declared that in view of the bar of limitation contained in Section 468 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate could not have taken cognizance against the appellant, the said order was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal of the revision petition. In the post remand order passed by him, the learned Sessions Judge independently examined the entire record and held that prima facie case was made out for initiating proceedings against the appellant herein under Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, it is not possible to agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellant that issue of summons against the appellant amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 18. In the impugned order, the High Court has broadly referred to the factual matrix of the case and held that the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and Sessions Judge do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The approach adopted by the High Court is in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Suppl.(1) SCC 335, C.B.I. v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava (2006) 7 SCC 188, R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516 and Mahesh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, [2009(2) Law Herald (SC) 1032] : (2009) 4 SCC 439.” 6. Hence, in view of this legal proposition settled in Suman’s case (supra), only prima facie case is to be seen and an accused can be summoned on the statement of complainant itself if prima facie case is made out against him. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Hence, the present petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.