Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2806 (RAJ)

Gaurishankar Soni v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-11-24

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the complainant/petitioner, claiming the following reliefs: "Therefore, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordship may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this Revision Petition of the petitioner and order dated 05.07.2019 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge Churu may kindly be ordered to be set aside and quashed and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before the learned court below may kindly be allowed." 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner (complainant), are that on 12.03.2008, complainant/petitioner's daughter Renu was brutally murdered by her in-laws' and other family members in her in- laws' house at Sardarshahar, in connection with the demand of dowry. On the same day, the complainant/petitioner lodged an FIR bearing no.76/2008, at Police Station, Sardarshahar for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, against 11 members of her in-laws' family. 2.1 Thereafter, the concerned police authorities filed the charge sheet bearing no. 92/2008 for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC against Vijay Kumar (husband of the deceased), Shri Ram (father-in-law), and Anandi Devi (mother-in-law). Subsequently, a supplementary charge sheet bearing no. 92A/2009 for the offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC against Ashok Kumar (brother-in-law) and Seema Devi (sister-in- law w/o Ashok Kumar). 3. It was further submitted that the statements of P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 were recorded, during trial and that the complainant/petitioner filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court, on the basis of statements of such witnesses and other evidences, for cognizance to be taken against the remaining six other persons. However, the learned Court below rejected the said application, vide the impugned order dated 05.07.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submitted that the learned Court below committed a grave illegality in rejecting the aforementioned application preferred by the petitioner, more particularly, in light of the fact that the names of accused-respondents were already mentioned clear in the impugned FIR, owing to their involvement in the crime in question. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submitted that the learned Court below committed a grave illegality in rejecting the aforementioned application preferred by the petitioner, more particularly, in light of the fact that the names of accused-respondents were already mentioned clear in the impugned FIR, owing to their involvement in the crime in question. 4.1 Learned counsel further submitted that in their statements, P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 have specifically mentioned about the involvement of the accused-respondents to the effect of harassing the deceased Renu (complainant/petitioner's daughter) in connection with the demand of dowry; the learned Court below however, completely ignored such material facts and the evidence available on the record. 4.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Court below passed a non-speaking order, and has erred in rejecting the application of the complainant/petitioner, while not making the due application of judicial mind, to the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as material available on the record before it. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the private respondents opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, and submitted that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order, after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on record before it. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as preferred by the complainant/petitioner, vide the impugned order during the trial ongoing before it, which is well reasoned, and therefore, does not merit any interference by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 8. This Court observes that the concerned police authorities, at the first instance, filed a charge sheet against the husband and his parents and thereafter, conducted further investigation and filed a supplementary charge-sheet against other family members, and after conducting thorough investigation, the concerned police authorities did not find any case to be made out against the present private respondents, even after filing of the supplementary charge-sheet. 9. This Court further observes that after filing of the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet, the complainant/petitioner did not take any action, nor by way of application under Section 193 CrP.C. for taking a cognizance against present private respondents. 10. 9. This Court further observes that after filing of the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet, the complainant/petitioner did not take any action, nor by way of application under Section 193 CrP.C. for taking a cognizance against present private respondents. 10. This Court thus observes that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order, dated 05.07.2019, while taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances and, the evidences placed on record, specifically the statements of the witnesses; furthermore, the learned court below has rightly observed that no specific act in the crime in question has been attributed to the private respondents herein; and the case was pending before the learned trial court since 2008, and therefore, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was rightly rejected. 11. This Court, therefore, observes that the position of law is settled and is clear as crystal, and at the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary power, which must not be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner, but the same may be exercised in cases, where there is strong and cogent evidence placed before the concerned Court, and further, an accused may be summoned, only if there is more than a prima facie case established against him, as is required at the stage of framing of charge, but less than the satisfaction required at the time of conclusion of trial, so as to convict the concerned accused. Such powers enjoined upon the competent Courts under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, and after duly appreciating the overall factual matrix of each individual case, and with due regard to the evidences so placed on record before the concerned Court. 12. This Court, in light of the aforesaid observations and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, does not find a case, warranting its interference to be made out; thus, the impugned order is upheld and affirmed. 13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.