Single judge allowed the revision petition, quashed the order summoning petitioners under Section 319 CrPC, and dismissed the Prosecutor’s application due to lack of material establishing their involvement.
Revocation of the order summoning petitioners as additional accused and dismissal of the application under Section 319 CrPC.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRL. REV. No.294 OF 2013 DATE OF DECISION : 28th MAY, 2013
Mahinder Singh @ Mahender & others
…. Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
…. Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present : Mr. A. P. Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sidharth Sarup, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. N. S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the complainant.
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
Mahinder Singh @ Mahender, Phool Singh and Jasmer have filed this revision petition assailing order dated 09.01.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra therby allowing application Annexure P-1 moved by complainant Urmila Devi through public prosecutor under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for summoning the petitioners as additional accused in FIR No.56 dated 08.03.2011 under Sections 323, 328 and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and thereby ordering summoning of the petitioners as additional accused to face the trial with Sanjeev etc. who are already facing trial in the case.
CRL. REV. NO.294 OF 2013
- 2 -
FIR Annexure P-5 was registered on statement of Urmila Devi made to learned Judicial Magistrate. The complainant inter alia alleged that she was being harassed by her in-laws. It was stated that on 07.03.2011, complainant’s husband, both parents-in-law, uncle-in-law and sister-in-law administered poison to the complainant. It was also added that the present petitioners who are husband of sister-in-law, maternal uncle-in-law and uncle-in-law were also mixed up and wanted the complainant to be ousted from the matrimonial home. The police on investigation presented report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of husband, parents-in-law, sister-in-law and uncle-in-law of the complainant while placing the petitioners in column No.2 as innocent.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no material on record to summon the petitioners as additional accused. On the other hand, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant contended that all the three petitioners were also specifically named in the first version mentioned in the FIR and the same has been reiterated by the complainant while appearing as witness during trial vide statement Annexure P-6 and therefore, petitioners have been rightly summoned as additional accused to face trial in the case.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Names of the petitioners were added at the fag end in statement recorded by learned Judicial Magistrate forming basis of the FIR. Relevant extract there of is reproduced hereunder:
CRL. REV. NO.294 OF 2013
- 3 -
“Q:- Do you want to say anything more, A:-No Sir. Three relatives are also mixed up who want me to be ousted, whose names are Mahinder, Phool Singh, Jasmer Singh, signature, Urmila.”
Similarly relevant extract of statement made by the complainant in the witness box is reproduced hereunder:
“My Nandol Mohinder Singh (husband’s sister’s husband), Phool Singh (Maternal uncle of my husband Sanjeev) and Jasmer Singh (uncle of Sanjeev) were also conspirators with my husband Sanjeev and his family members and they were also bent upon to get me shunted out from matrimonial home and they also used to threat me.”
It is manifest from the aforesaid averments that no role, whatsoever, has been attributed to the petitioners. They have simply been named as conspirators without disclosing any fact or circumstance whatsoever to depict their involvement in the alleged conspiracy. Even in the witness box, the complainant did not state anything in this regard except improving her version by stating that these petitioners also used to threaten her. The said improvement is required to be ignored, but even if taken into consideration, it also does not make out a case for proceeding against the petitioners under Section 319 Cr.P.C. There is usual tendency to implicate all members of the family of in-laws. In the instant case, already five accused are facing trial in the case who allegedly took part in the
CRL. REV. NO.294 OF 2013
- 4 -
occurrence. The present three petitioners had no role, whatsoever, to play. They were not even present at the spot at the time of occurrence. No fact or circumstance has been alleged against them regarding alleged conspiracy. Consequently, merely because the complainant has stated that petitioners were also conspirators, it cannot be said that there was any such conspiracy or that the petitioners were involved in any alleged conspiracy.
It thus emerges that there is practically no material on record to proceed against the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Impugned order of learned trial Judge is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Learned trial Judge has exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in him to summon the petitioners as additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. because there is no sufficient material to proceed against the petitioners.
As a necessary consequence, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 09.01.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra is set aside. Application Annexure P-1, moved by complainant through Public Prosecutor under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall have any bearing on merits of the case against five accused who are facing trial in the case.
28th May, 2013 ‘raj’
(L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether additional accused can be summoned under Section 319 CrPC when no material-establishes their role or presence at the occurrence.
Whether mere naming of relatives as conspirators without alleging specific facts supports an order under Section 319 CrPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahinder Singh @ Mahender & others
State of Haryana
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
