SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Satpal Singh & Another vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 July, 2018

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 :::

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