SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amarjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 5 July, 2019

101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-7538 of 2016.
Decided on:- July 05, 2019.

Amarjit Kaur.
………Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab and others
………Respondents.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA.

*****

Present:- Mr. Y.M. Bhagirath, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Sukhbeer Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate
for respondents No.5 and 6.

HARI PAL VERMA, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. impugning order dated 02.06.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roopnagar, whereby the application filed by the

petitioner-complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of

respondents No.4 to 6, namely, Baljinder Singh, Harbhajan Kaur and

Kiranjeet Singh, was dismissed.

Challenge has also been laid to judgment dated 14.10.2015

(Annexure P-5) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ropar vide which the

1 of 4
14-07-2019 16:52:54 :::
CRM-M-7538 of 2016 -2-

criminal revision filed by the petitioner-complainant against the aforesaid

order dated 02.06.2015, was dismissed.

Vide order dated 06.02.2017 passed by this Court, the present

petition was dismissed qua respondents No.3 and 4 as not pressed. Therefore,

the petition now survives qua respondents No.5 and 6 only.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there are

specific allegations against respondents No.5 and 6 regarding demand of

dowry and torture. The Courts below have dismissed the application of the

petitioner under Section 319 Cr.PC on one of the ground that in the divorce

proceedings pending between the petitioner and her husband, the petitioner

had submitted an affidavit, wherein she has not levelled any allegation against

her in-laws and respondent Kiranjit Singh. He has referred paragraph No.9 of

the said affidavit to state that there are allegations of harassment on account

of demand of dowry.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that though

the husband of the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge framed against

him by the trial Court, but against the said judgment of acquittal, the

petitioner has already preferred a revision, which is pending before this Court.

Therefore, this petition be heard along with that revision.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6

has argued that there are no specific allegations against respondents No.5 and

6 regarding harassment of the petitioner on account of demand of dowry and

the allegations are general in nature.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2 of 4
14-07-2019 16:52:54 :::
CRM-M-7538 of 2016 -3-

It is a conceded fact that that the husband of the petitioner has

been acquitted of the charge framed against him by the trial Court. Though

the petitioner has filed a revision before this Court against the said judgment

of acquittal, but pendency of said revision has no relevance so far as the

present petition is concerned. Therefore, no ground is made out to hear the

present petition along with the revision filed by the petitioner against the

judgment of acquittal.

Moreover, in her affidavit filed during the divorce petition,

though the petitioner has submitted that the conduct of her husband and his

family members remained cruel towards her and they often demanded dowry,

but even in the said affidavit, no specific date or time regarding her

harassment on account of demand of dowry has been mentioned by the

petitioner. Thus, the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the said affidavit

are not specific, but are general in nature.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods Limited and another

Versus Special Judicial Magistrate and others-(1998) 5 Supreme Court

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

3 of 4
14-07-2019 16:52:54 :::
CRM-M-7538 of 2016 -4-

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 scrutinise 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.”

In Hardeep Singh Versus State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92, it

has been held by the Apex Court that the degree of satisfaction for invoking

Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be of more than a prima-facie case, as exercised at

the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that

evidence, if not rebutted, may lead to conviction of the person sought to be

added as accused.

Therefore, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the order

dated 02.06.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Roopnagar as well as the judgment dated 14.10.2015 (Annexure

P-4) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ropar, which may warrant

interference by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is

dismissed.

(HARI PAL VERMA)
July 05, 2019 JUDGE
Yag Dutt

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No

4 of 4
14-07-2019 16:52:54 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation