Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2651 (PNJ)

Parvinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2019-09-24

HARI PAL VERMA

body2019
Judgment Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J.:-Whereas, the Petitioners no.1 and 3 are brothers-in-law, thepetitioner no.2 is sister-in-law of the complainant-respondent no.2, havefiled this petition under Section 482 CrPC for setting aside the order dated18.01.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,Patiala, whereby, on an application moved by respondent no.2 throughAPP under Section 319 CrPC, they have been summoned to face trial, asadditional accused. 2. Briefly stated, as per the allegations made by respondent no.2-complainant, the marriage between Bikramjit Singh (husband) andcomplainant was solemnised on 11.04.2005, wherein the father ofcomplainant after availing loan of Rs.4,00,000/-, had given Rs.6,00,000/- incash to the in-laws of respondent no.2 in addition to the other expensesincurred in the marriage. However, after one week of the marriage, thehusband started quarrelling with the complainant so as to compel her tobring more money. He gave her beatings. The complainant narrated theharassment to her father. Since her father was a heart patient, he could notbear it and suffered heart attack. Ultimately, he died on 04.05.2005.Despite this, the in-laws family did not show any sympathy towards thecomplainant. On 30.11.2005, petitioner no.2-Nanad got married and after3-4 days, the husband of the complainant and petitioner no.3 left for abroad(France). Thereafter, the in-laws of the complainant again started tauntingand beating her for dowry. On 04.12.2005, when Nanad of complainanthad come to their house, she along with mother-in-law, father in law andbrother-in-law (Devar) of the complainant, started beating her withoutcaring the fact that the complainant was having 6 months pregnancy. On07.12.2005, they again gave beatings to the complainant and ousted herfrom her matrimonial home. Since then, the complainant is residing in herparental home, where twin daughters were born to her. Despite havingcome to know about the birth of daughters, the in-laws of complainant didnot allow her to enter in her matrimonial home. The complainant’s familyeven went to the matrimonial home of the complainant along withpanchayat, but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant received phone callsfrom her husband who was abroad asking her if the parents of thecomplainant could arrange Rs. 10 lakhs, then he can bring her abroad. Aftersome time her husband told her that his documents in Italy have expiredand if she would give him divorce, he can marry there and become apermanent resident and thereafter, he will bring her to Italy. Even the inlaws of the complainant started giving threats to her in this regard. 10 lakhs, then he can bring her abroad. Aftersome time her husband told her that his documents in Italy have expiredand if she would give him divorce, he can marry there and become apermanent resident and thereafter, he will bring her to Italy. Even the inlaws of the complainant started giving threats to her in this regard. On thebasis of the allegations so levelled by the complainant in her complaintagainst her in-laws, the present FIR under Section 406, 498-A IPC wasregistered against them. During investigation of the case, the petitionerswere declared innocent and placed in column no.2 of the challan. However,after recording the statement of the complainant, the prosecution moved anapplication under section 319 CrPC, for summoning of the presentpetitioners, which was allowed by learned Additional Chief judicialMagistrate, Patiala vide order dated 18.01.2014. 3. It is in these circumstances the petitioners-accused have filedthe present petition, assailing the order dated 18.01.2014 passed by learnedAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that thepetitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case just to harassand settle scores. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners inthe FIR. The allegations are general and vague and the petitioners haveunnecessarily been dragged into the litigation as they are family membersof her husband. The marriage between the complainant and BikramjitSingh had taken place on 11.04.2005 and thereafter, Bikramjit Singh leftfor Italy in 2005 itself. The complainant also left her matrimonial homeafter few days of marriage and since then she is staying at her parentalhome. The FIR in question has been registered in the year 2008, whereaspetitioner No. 2 and 3 had already left for abroad in 2005 and 2007respectively and since then they are residing there. Petitioner No.1 is aNational level sportsperson and is working in Punjab Police and is residingat Jalandhar prior to the marriage of the complainant with Bikramjit Singh.Even otherwise, the present petitioners have been declared innocent in anenquiry conducted by D.S.P. (D), Patiala and were accordingly, placed incolumn No.2. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant, while supporting the order passed by the Magistrate, hasargued that there are specific allegations against the petitioners andsufficient evidence is available against them to show that they treated thecomplainant with cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused theimpugned order. 7. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant, while supporting the order passed by the Magistrate, hasargued that there are specific allegations against the petitioners andsufficient evidence is available against them to show that they treated thecomplainant with cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused theimpugned order. 7. The marriage between the complainant and Bikramjit Singhhad taken place on 11.04.2005, whereas the FIR in question was registeredon 22.10.2008. Petitioners No.1 and 3 are brothers-in-law whereaspetitioner No.2 is married sister-in-law of the complainant. The husband ofcomplainant-Bikramjit Singh had left for Italy in 2005 and never returnedback. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 and 3 had also left for abroad in 2005 and2007 respectively and since then they are residing there. The complainantherself had also left her matrimonial home in 2005 itself. Thus, petitionersno.2 and 3 have shifted to abroad much before the registration of thepresent FIR i.e. 22.10.2008. 8. The allegations levelled by the complainant against thepetitioners, who are brothers-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant,have duly been looked into by the police during investigation, and it isthereafter, they were declared innocent by D.S.P. (D), Patiala and wereplaced in column No.2. This Court finds that except the allegations levelledby the complainant, there is no other sufficient material before this Courtwarranting summoning of respondents, as additional accused, particularlywhen they were declared innocent during investigation and petitioners no.2and 3 had left for abroad much before the registration of the FIR. In thisregard, reference may made to judgment in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another Versus State of U.P. and another, [2013(1) Marriage L.J. 111 (SC)] : 2012(4) RCR (Criminal)812, wherein, Hon’ble the Apex Court has held that in criminal cases,arising out of a matrimonial disputes, a fact borne out of experience cannotbe overlooked that there is a tendency to involve the entire family membersof the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonialdispute. 9. No doubt, Section 319 Cr.PC provides that where, in thecourse of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from theevidence that any person not being the accused, has committed any offencefor which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Courtmay proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to havecommitted. 9. No doubt, Section 319 Cr.PC provides that where, in thecourse of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from theevidence that any person not being the accused, has committed any offencefor which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Courtmay proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to havecommitted. However, at the same time, no person, on an application underSection 319 Cr.PC, can be summoned as an additional accused merely onthe basis of statement of the complainant recorded in the Court unless thereis sufficient material to summon. In order to summon an accused, some”fresh evidence” must have come on record so as to impel the Court tosummon such person as an additional accused. 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Limited and another Versus Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SupremeCourt Cases 749 has held as under: “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 11. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 11. Similarly, in the case of Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 , it has been held by the Apex Court that thedegree of satisfaction for invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be of morethan a prima-facie case, as exercised at the time of framing of charge, butshort of satisfaction to an extent that evidence, if not rebutted, may lead toconviction of the person sought to be added as accused. Thus, power underSection 319 CrPC being discretionary, has to be exercised sparingly, onlywhen there is cogent evidence and the circumstances so desire. 12. In view of the aforesaid, when the facts of the present case areanalyzed in the light of judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Geeta Mehrotra and another (supra), Pepsi Foods Limited and another (supra), and Hardeep Singh (supra), this Court finds that the petitioners have beensummoned by the trial Court without there being any material against them,particularly when petitioners no.2 and 3 had left for abroad much beforethe registration of the present FIR and thus, the chances of conviction ofthe petitioners-accused in the case, are quite bleak. Therefore, no usefulpurpose would be served to summon the accused. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugnedorder dated 18.01.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala is set aside.