Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1702 (PNJ)

Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-12-09

M.M.S.BEDI

body2014
M.M. Singh Bedi, J. 1. The petitioners have been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial along with Sukhjivan Singh in a case registered at the instance of complainant Rajni Bala alleging that she was engaged to Sukhjivan Singh and was physically abused on number of occasions by him. The petitioners had allegedly, on 31.08.2013, made an attempt to kidnap the prosecutrix. Taking the said circumstance to be connected with offence under Section 376 I.P.C., the petitioners were summoned to be tried along with the main accused for offence of rape. Petitioners approached this Court to challenge the order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. but they were directed to avail the remedy by raising all the pleas before the trial Court at the time of framing of the charges requiring the trial Court to pass a speaking order. Vide order dated 31.05.2014, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kapurthala has passed a speaking order observing that it is clear that the petitioners in one way or the other have conspired with Sukhjivan Singh and they were having a meeting of minds before the commission of crime as such prima facie case for offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. read with Section 120-B I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. 2. The aforesaid observation is apparently contrary to the material available on record in report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 3. I have gone through the statement of prosecutrix made in the Court on oath, Annexure P-10, wherein the incident on 31.08.2013 has been mentioned when the present petitioners along with Sukhjivan Singh had forcibly entered in the gas agency where she was working and started doing obscene acts with her. The co-accused of the petitioner Sukhjivan Singh had asked the petitioners to do whatever they like with her. 4. The same incident stands mentioned in the FIR. The investigating agency has thoroughly investigated the matter and declared the petitioners innocent being not connected with offence under Section 376 I.P.C. which is attributed to main accused Sukhjivan Singh. Even otherwise, the endeavour on the part of the prosecutrix to implicate the petitioners is apparently motivated and she appears to be vindictive on account of admission of the fact that Amrik Singh, father of petitioner No. 1 had filed a criminal complaint Annexure P-6 against Ranjit Singh, father of the prosecutrix. Even otherwise, the endeavour on the part of the prosecutrix to implicate the petitioners is apparently motivated and she appears to be vindictive on account of admission of the fact that Amrik Singh, father of petitioner No. 1 had filed a criminal complaint Annexure P-6 against Ranjit Singh, father of the prosecutrix. Besides, he has also filed a suit for recovery against the father of the prosecutrix. Decree passed in said suit is Annexure P-4. Prima facie the petitioner No. 1 has been able to show the previous rivalry to indicate that the complainant is over zealous to implicate the petitioners along with main accused Sukhjivan Singh. 5. The provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be permitted to be misused by prosecution or complainant for extraneous reasons. The order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. summoning the petitioners as additional accused and the order framing charges against the petitioners on presumption and misconceived notions that there was prior meeting of mind of the petitioners with the main accused to commit offence under Section 376 I.P.C. The petitioners might be known to the main accused but the role attributed to the petitioners is not sufficient enough to warrant their trial under Section376 I.P.C. specially when the circumstances indicating the rivalry of the father of the prosecutrix with father of petitioner No. 1, is established. The order summoning the petitioners and order framing the charges against the petitioners is accordingly quashed. Nothing said in this order will prejudice the prosecution of Sukhjivan Singh. The petition is allowed in the above terms.