CRM-M No.30371 of 2018 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.30371 of 2018 (OM)
Date of decision : 23.7.2018
…
Satpal Singh and another
…………….Petitioners
vs.
State of Punjab and another
……………..Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Argued by: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
…
H. S. Madaan, J.
Complainant Rajni had submitted a written complaint to
DSP Nakodar, against her husband Dilbagh Singh, father-in-law Sat
Pal, mother-in-law Ram Pyari, elder brother of her husband (jeth)
Hem Raj, sister-in-law (Nanad) Sita Rani, alleging that her husband
had performed second marriage by playing fraud with her and causing
her mental and physical cruelty and accused had raised demand of
more dowry.
Inter alia in the complaint, she had contended that she
was married to Dilbagh Singh on 20.1.2012; that Dilbagh Singh had
come from Manila; that at that time her parents had given several
1 of 7
27-07-2018 23:40:19 :::
CRM-M No.30371 of 2018 -2-
valuable articles in dowry; that after a few days of her marriage she
found that her husband was addicted to liquor and would come home
in a drunken condition and fight with her unnecessarily; that her
mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to misbehave with her and abuse
her besides harassing her for bringing more dowry; that on 10.3.2012,
her husband went abroad and after two months, he told the
complainant on telephone that he needed Rs.4 lacs and she should tell
her parents to give the said amount to the person informed by her
husband at village Bilga. However on receipt of the amount, he
switched off his phone and did not call the complainant. However,
one day sister-in-law of the complainant told her that her husband
was already married abroad and had children, as such she should
leave the matrimonial home. Thereafter, parents of the complainant
had a talk with her in-laws family, who abused her parents and also
misbehaved with them.
On receipt of the complainant, the matter was enquired
into by Incharge Women Cell, Sub Division, Nakodar, who
concluded that complainant Rajni has been mentally and physically
harassed for bringing more dowry and then turned out of her
matrimonial home by her husband Dilbagh Singh, mother-in-law Ram
Pyari. Thus FIR against both of them was ordered to be registered, for
offence under Sections 406, 498-A IPC at Police Station Sadar,
Nakodar.
After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated
and then Ram Pyari and Dilbagh Singh were sent up to face trial.
Dilbagh Singh had already been declared as proclaimed offender.
2 of 7
27-07-2018 23:40:19 :::
CRM-M No.30371 of 2018 -3-
After framing of charge, the prosecution witnesses were examined.
During the trial, the Public Prosecutor moved an application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Satpal Singh, Hem Raj s/o Satpal
Singh and Sita Rani d/o Satpal Singh, all residents of village Bajra,
Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar, as accused in this case.
Vide impugned order, the application was accepted and three
proposed accused were ordered to be summoned. The order was
challenged by way of filing a revision petition before the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which was dismissed vide
order dated 10.5.2018, as such the present petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed against the said order.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, besides
going through the record.
The petitioners are specifically named in the FIR and
criminal acts have been attributed to them, which disclose
commission of cognizable offences. They have filed revision before
the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which revision petition
stood dismissed. Thus petitioners have approached this Court.
I do not see any infirmity or illegality with the orders
passed by the Courts below, which might have called for interference
by this Court, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The relevant part of the impugned order passed by the learned
Magistrate reads as under:-
“The perusal of record shows that original FIR
in question was registered vide written
complaint No. 955 PTM dated 26.6.2013, 77
3 of 7
27-07-2018 23:40:19 :::
CRM-M No.30371 of 2018 -4-BH-R-DSP-NKD dated 15.3.2013 on the
statement of one Rajni daughter of Pankaj
Kumar against two persons (present accused)
under Sections 406, 498A Of IP Code PS
Mehatpur, whereas Satpal Singh (father in law
of complainant) HemRaj (Jeth of complainant)
and Sita Rani (Nanan of complainant) were
declared innocent by the police. In her
statement, complainant alleges that she is
subjected to cruelty by all the accused persons
on the demand of dowry and they in collusion
with each other solemnized second marriage of
complainant with of accused Dilbag Singh
(since PO). During the course of investigation
police has recorded the statement of
complainant on dated 14.5.2013 where she has
specifically mentioned the names and role of
Satpal Singh, Hem Raj and Sita Rani in the
alleged solemnization of second marriage of
complainant with of accused Dilbag Singh. The
evidence presented in the police record further
showed that during investigation the mediator of
marriage of complainant and Dilbag namely,
Kamal Narayan son of Late Phuman Ram and
Sarpanch of the Village Bajra Ram Aasra also
confirmed the fact of former marriage of
4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 27-07-2018 23:40:19 :::
CRM-M No.30371 of 2018 -5-accused Dilbag Singh in Manila with another
lady. They deposed that accused Dilbag Singh
have two children from his first marriage.
Further the depositions of Satpal Singh, Ram
Piyari and Sita Devi has also reveals that they
have actively participated in the marriage of
complainant. The proposed accused persons are
nothing else but relative between both families.
It may here also be observed that according to
Explanation below Section 109 of the Indian
Penal Code an act or offence is said to be
committed in consequence of abetment when it
is committed in consequence of the instigation
or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.
Since there is prima facie evidence against
proposed three persons qua the former marriage
of accused Dilbag Singh with another lady, there
is material to take cognizance for the offence
under section 494 read with Section 109 IPC. It
would be inferred from the evidence that, there
was agreement of the Satpal Singh, Hem Raj
and Sita Rani in the second marriage of accused
Dilbag Singh and they knew that the first wife
of accused Dilbag Singh is living. Therefore,
prima facie the offence of criminal conspiracy
also appears to have been committed. In view of
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 27-07-2018 23:40:19 :::
CRM-M No.30371 of 2018 -6-the aforesaid material on record, I am of the
view that sufficient ground is made out for
proceeding against said Satpal Singh, Hem Raj
and Sita Rani under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and
there is earlier probability that they may be
eventually convicted in the present case, if
prosecution evidence is satisfactorily led against
them. Accordingly, present application is hereby
admitted and said Satpal Singh, Hem Raj and
Sita Rani is ordered to be summoned as an
accused in this case to face trial for 9.10.2017.”
Paragraph 5 of the judgment passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, is also reproduced as under:-
“5. On the basis of this evidence learned trial
court formed an opinion that there is sufficient
material to proceed ahead and take cognizance
under Section 494 IPC read with Section 109
IPC. In the opinion of this Court, no illegality in
this approach can be found as summoning
cannot be limited or confined to offence under
Section 498-A IPC only. No doubt offence
under Section 494 IPC read with Section 109
IPC is non cognizable, but when trial is already
undergoing under Section 498-A IPC, this
aspect can also be gone into. Though in the
learned trial court’s file, no charge under
6 of 7
27-07-2018 23:40:19 :::
CRM-M No.30371 of 2018 -7-Section 494 IPC is there, but charge can be
framed at any stage. Perusal of the file shows
that trial is going at initial stage. Complainant
from the very beginning had attributed second
marriage of her husband and participation by
family members. Prima facie a person who
already marriage and have children, then such
information must in the knowledge of close
family. So if they actively participated and
allowed performance of second marriage with
complainant, then prima facie abetment under
section 494 IPC read with Section 109 IPC is
certainly there.”
Thus finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.
( H.S. Madaan )
23.7.2018 Judge
chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
7 of 7
27-07-2018 23:40:19 :::