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 in3 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 :::