Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 28 (PAT)

Jagriti Kumari v. State of Bihar

2017-01-12

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2017
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order, dated 31.07.2014, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 497 (C) of 2011, whereby he has rejected a petition filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”, in short). 3. The petitioner is the wife of Opposite Party No. 2. She has filed a complaint case, disclosing offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, implicating Opposite Party No. 2 and other members of his family. The Court, however, by order, dated 25.05.2011, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issued summonses to Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 only and not against other persons. 4. The petitioner moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Patna, by filing Criminal Revision No. 537 of 2011 against the order, dated 25.05.2011, raising a grievance against non-summoning of other accused persons, which came to be dismissed by an order, dated 03.01.2012. 5. Subsequently, at the trial, some of the witnesses were examined, whereafter the petitioner filed an application under Section 319 of the Code for summoning the other accused persons to face trial, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order, has submitted that on the basis of evidence of witnesses adduced at the trial, it can be easily seen that commission of offences by other accused persons is also made out and in such circumstance, the Court below ought to have summoned them and tried them also, exercising power under Section 319 of the Code. 7. The language of Section 319 of the Code is clear and it confers discretion upon the Court to proceed against a person not being an accused, if, in course of enquiry or trial, it appears that such person has committed any offence for which he or she could be tried together with other accused. 7. The language of Section 319 of the Code is clear and it confers discretion upon the Court to proceed against a person not being an accused, if, in course of enquiry or trial, it appears that such person has committed any offence for which he or she could be tried together with other accused. The pre-condition for exercise of discretion under Section 319 of the Code is that the Court holding enquiry or trial must have the satisfaction that any person not being an accused has committed the offence for which he can be tried together with the accused persons put on trial. In the present case, the Court was not satisfied in this regard. 8. Secondly, only on the basis that certain materials cropped up during the trial against certain persons, it will not be obligatory for the Court to exercise power under Section 319 of the Code. Such discretion can be exercised after satisfaction having been reached, as noted above. 9. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. This application has no merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.