Petitioners challenged a summoning order via a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, arguing they were innocent based on police investigation. The High Court examined the police report and precedent to decide if the summons was legally valid.
Summoning order dated 05.09.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. No. M-11666 of 2012 was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No M-11666 of 2012 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No M-11666 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.10.2013
Sanjeev Kumar and another
....Petitioners
versus
Ramesh Chand
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Rahul Bhargav, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Ajit Attri, Advocate for the respondent.
RITU BAHRI , J.
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is for quashing of criminal complaint No. 220 of 20.12.2010 pending in the Court of Sh. R.P. Singh, Sub Divnl. Judl. Magistrate, Pehowa (P-1) and summoning order dated 05.09.2011(P-2).
Brief facts of the case are that on 23.11.2009, marriage of son of petitioner No. 2 Amit Kumar was solemnized with daughter of respondent/complainant namely Ruchi at Kurukshetra. After the marriage, Ruchi was subjected to harassment by the family members of Amit Kumar on account of bring insufficient dowry at the time of marriage. Several panchayats were convened and eventually on 03.07.2010, Amit Kumar along with his wife Ruchi and other persons had forcibly entered into the house of
Arora Gaurav 2013.10.31 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
Crl. Misc. No M-11666 of 2012 (O&M)
respondent along with deadly weapons and started using abusive language and gave blows with their respective weapons upon the respondent and on interference of the son of respondent, he was also threatened to be killed by the alleged accused persons. It has been alleged that Amit Kumar has forcibly taken away his wife Ruchi along with him to his house at Ludhiana and after detaining her for two days, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house. Hence the present complaint.
Thereafter, the respondent/complainant lodged F.I.R No. 77 dated 11.07.2010 u/ss 148/149/323/452/506 IPC registered at P.S.Ismailabad, Distt. Kurukshetra for the same occurrence. After detailed investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed only against Amit Kumar. Thereafter, the local persons from the vicinity of the respondent including reputed persons suffered a common statement to the effect that they were present at the spot on the day of occurrence and no such fight as alleged by the respondent ever took place between the respondent and the petitioners and the complaint given by the respondent against the petitioners and his family members about the alleged occurrence has no truth in it (P-4). On 03.07.21010, Amit Kumar (son of petitioner No. 2) received a telephonic call from his mother-in-law Kailash Rani alleging that respondent has suffered a heart attack and wants to meet his daughter Ruchi (daughter-in-law of petitioner No. 2). After receiving the call, the petitioners along with family members rushed to the house of the respondent. However, the respondent was found to be in fit condition and instead of
Arora Gaurav 2013.10.31 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-3-
Crl. Misc. No M-11666 of 2012 (O&M)
welcoming the petitioners, wife of respondent started picking up quarrels with them and respondent and his son along with four other unknown persons started manhandling and gave slaps to the petitioners and torn out their clothes also. The petitioners managed to run away from the spot. Ruchi wife of Amit Kumar herself had accompanied her husband to her matrimonial house at Ludhiana and she was never thrown out of her matrimonial house.
Reference has been made to a compromise dated 22.07.2010 entered between the parties in the above stated F.I.R and a letter in this regard has also been sent to Station House Officer, P.S. Ismailabad, Kurukshetra to the effect that due to intervention of Panchayat, the matter has been compromised and now he does not want to pursue with his complaint given to the Police Station on 11.07.2010, which was witnessed by several persons from vicinity (P-7).
The complaint (P-1) has been filed to harass the petitioners and to extract money. The petitioner No. 1 is brotherin-law and petitioner No. 2 is father-in-law of the daughter of the respondent, petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are close relatives and petitioner No. 5 is the Municipal Councillor and petitioner No. 6 is the panchayat Member who are being dragged to put pressure on the petitioners to get the property transferred in the name of the daughter of the respondent.
The case of the petitioners is that after marriage, the conduct of Ruchi towards her husband Amit Kumar and other family members changed and turned very volatile and she started
Arora Gaurav 2013.10.31 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-4-
Crl. Misc. No M-11666 of 2012 (O&M)
picking quarrels with them even on petty matters and started demanding partition of property and a separate accommodation. She left their house many times and got rehabilitated with the intervention of respectable and on 29.05.2010 in the panchayat,she put a condition t hat she will only join the society of her husband if all the jewellery articles would be handed over to her Massar namely Satish Sharma wherein in order to save matrimonial life, her husband Amit Kumar handed over all jewellery items to Satish Sharma in the presence of panchayat members.
Thereafter, Amit Kumar and Ruchi started living separately. Ruchi raised another demand and started pressurizing her husband to take share in the family property and transfer it on her own name. Amit Kumar never agreed upon this.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R No. 77 dated 11.07.2010 u/ss 148/149/323/452/506 IPC was registered at P.S.Ismailabad, Distt. Kurukshetra against all the family members of Amit Kumar including petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. After due investigation, challan was presented against Amit Kumar and all the other family members were kept in column No. 2. The present complaint was filed on 20.12.2010 against the petitioners. While passing the summoning order dated 05.09.2011 (P-2), the trial Court has not made a reference to the registration of the above said F.I.R. Without examining the contents of the challan and the role attributed to the present petitioners, summoning orders have been passed on 05.09.2011. At this stage, question for
Arora Gaurav 2013.10.31 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Crl. Misc. No M-11666 of 2012 (O&M)
-5-
consideration is that whether the trial Court without considering the investigation report in the above stated F.I.R, summoned the petitioners in the private complaint when they were found to be innocent in the investigation.
This aspect has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Jile Singh vs. State of U.P and another, 2012(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 583 wherein it has been held that once after registration of the F.I.R, charge sheet has not been filed by the Police. Such a person cannot be summoned as accused on a private complaint filed by aggrieved person under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The person could be summoned by following the procedure under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In paragraph 9, it has been held as under:-
9. In the present case, if the order passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, in issuing summons against
the appellant on the complaint filed by the respondent No.
2-complainant, which has been confirmed by the High Court,
is allowed to stand, it would mean addition of the
appellant to the array of the accused in a pending case
before the Sessions Judge at a stage prior to collecting
any evidence by that court. This course is absolutely
impermissible in view of the law laid down by a three
Judge Bench of this court in the case of Ranjit Singh
(supra). The stage of Section 209 of the Code having
reached in the case, it was not open to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mathura to exercise the power under Section
204(1)(b) of the Code and issue summons to the appellant.
The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura is
Arora Gaurav 2013.10.31 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-6-
Crl. Misc. No M-11666 of 2012 (O&M)
totally without jurisdiction. The High Court was clearly
in error in not keeping in view the law laid by this Court
in the case of Ranjit Singh (supra) followed by a
subsequent decision in the case of Kishori Singh (supra)
and in upholding the illegal order of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Mathura.
Reference at this stage can be made to statement give by the persons from the vicinity of the complainant (P-4) in which they stated that they were present at the spot on the day of occurrence and no such fight as alleged by the respondent ever took place between the respondent and the petitioners. Moreover, a compromise was effected on 22.07.2010 (P-7) which was witnessed by several persons from the vicinity of the complainant. Petitioner No. 5 who is the Municipal Councillor from the local area and petitioner No. 6 who is the Panchayat Members have been unnecessarily dragged in the complaint. The role of the above stated persons have been duly examined and investigated by the police when the F.I.R was registered. Thus, without making any reference to the detailed investigate conducted by the police in the F.I.R, the summoning order dated 05.09.2011 (P-2) is liable to be quashed.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2009(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 677 in paragraph 8 has held as under:-
“8. Indisputably issuance of summons is not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 of the Code. This Court in a large number of decisions beginning from R .P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR Arora Gaurav
Arora Gaurav 2013.10.31 17:23
I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-7-
Crl. Misc. No M-11666 of 2012 (O&M)
1960 SC 866 to Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka , [ (2008) 3 SCC 574 ]
has laid down the criterion for entertaining an application under Section 482. Only because a revision petition is maintainable, the same by itself, in our considered opinion, would not constitute a bar for entertaining an application under Section 482 of the Code.
Even where a revision application is barred, as for example the remedy by way of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 this Court has held that the remedies under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India would be available. (See Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, [ (2003) 6 SCC 675 ] ).
Even in cases where a second revision before the High Court after dismissal of the first one by the Court of Sessions is barred under Section 397 (2) of the Code, the inherent power of the Court has been held to be available.”
For the reasons aforementioned and by applying the ratio of the above said judgments, summoning order dated 05.09.2011(P-2) is quashed.
The petition stands allowed.
11.10.2013 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE
Arora Gaurav 2013.10.31 17:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a summoning order should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C when the accused were excluded from the police charge-sheet in a related FIR.
Whether the High Court retains inherent power to entertain an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C even if a revision petition is barred.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jile Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 583Followed¶41
Ranjit SinghExplained¶42
Kishori SinghExplained¶46
Dhariwal Tobaco Products Ltd and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2009(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 677Followed¶48
Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka , [ (2008) 3 SCC 574 ]Explained¶54
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjeev Kumar
Amit Kumar
Ramesh Chand
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court