Sections 406, 498-A IPC found to be false, Section 328 IPC was deleted

IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

CRR No.2665 of 2013(O&M)
Date of decision : 26.08.2013

Mukesh Rani… Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others… Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.

REKHA MITTAL, J.(ORAL)

The present petition is directed against the order dated 02.05.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamunanagar, whereby application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Suresh Kumar son of Fatia, Khazani Devi wife of Suresh Kumar and Reena Devi daughter of Suresh Kumar as additional accused to face trial in case FIR No.608 dated 10.12.2010, under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station City Yamunanagar, has been dismissed.

The petitioner was married to Parveen Kumar son of Suresh Kumar on 12.02.2010. As per allegations contained in the FIR, her husband and other family members were not happy with the dowry given in marriage. Her husband demanded motor cycle and cash amount, Reena (sister-in-law) demanded readymade cloths and Khazani Devi (mother-in-law) was taunting that she has brought cloths of inferior quality. She was subject to Davinder Kumar 2013.09.03 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document beatings by her husband and sister-in-law. She was administered some substance by her husband and mother-in-law on 09.12.2010. She left the matrimonial home in December, 2010.

On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against Parveen Kumar and the persons namely Suresh Kumar, Khazani Devi and Reena Devi were found innocent and kept in column No.2.

Mukesh Rani complainant appeared in the witness box and her brother was examined as a witness and on the basis of evidence adduced by them, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed, which has been dismissed by the trial Court and this is how, the matter before this Court in revision.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant in the First Information Report and her statement in the Court as a witness has levelled specific allegations against Suresh Kumar and others attributing specific role to each of them in regard to demand of dowry and cruelty meted out to her during her stay in the matrimonial home. It is argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly and illegally rejected the prayer of the petitioner for summoning Suresh Kumar and others as additional accused to face trial with the accused already before the court.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. Before adverting to merits of the controversy, it is necessary to recapitulate the legal position to exercise power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It has been consistently and repeatedly held in catena of judgments that a person can not be summoned as an additional accused merely if prima facie case is made out against him. A person can be summoned when the Court finds that evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned. Sufficient and cogent reasons are to be assigned to summon an additional accused. The power is extra ordinary and discretionary in nature to be used sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. In this context, reference can be made to the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Krishan Rastogi, 1983(1) RCR, (Criminal) 73, Micheal @ Machado and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75, Sarabjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal), 388. In Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & another Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2009(1) RCR, 504, it was held that a person cannot be summoned to face trial on the basis of strong suspicion unless there was a possibility of his conviction.

Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, the complainant is the wife of Parveen Kumar and the persons sought to be summoned are the family members of her husband i.e. his father, mother and sister. A perusal of allegations set out in the First Information Report and the statement of the complainant would reveal that she has raised general and omnibus allegations against her parents in-law and sister-in-law. The learned trial Court has rightly held that no convincing evidence has come on record against accused Suresh Kumar, Khazani Devi and Reena Devi sought to be added as additional accused and it appears that the purpose of filing the present application is to drag them unnecessarily into criminal litigation. The Court examined the case in the light of certain judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court refer to in the impugned order and one of these judgments is a land marked judgment in Micheal @ Machado’s case (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Preeti Gupta & another Vs. State of Jharkhand & another, 2010 AIR (SC) 3363 the Court held that there is a general tendency to involve as many as family members of the husband in proceedings under Sections 406, 498-A IPC.

Another fact which invites notice is that the complainant levelled allegations against her husband and mother-in-law that they administered some substance with an intent to cause hurt to her constituting a serious offence under Section 328 IPC. The accusations in this regard were found to be false in the light of analysis by the Forensic Science Laboratory and consequently offence under Section 328 IPC was deleted.

In view of the above, I do not find any error, infirmity much less illegality in the impugned order as would call for interference.

Dismissed.

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE August 26, 2013.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *