The single judge dismissed the revision petition challenging the order summoning the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court held that at the summary stage, evidence does not require merit-based evaluation and specific allegations of dowry receipt justified the process.
Petition dismissed in limine.
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.
-1-
Crl. Misc. No. M-27237 of 2016 (O&M)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-27237 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.10.2016
Raj Singla @ Raj Rani
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY
Present: Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
ANITA CHAUDHRY, J(ORAL)
CRM-33344-2016
Application is allowed and Annexures P-5 and P-6 (Colly) are taken on record.
CRM-M-27237-2016
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 12.5.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.10.2015 has been dismissed. The petitioner had been summoned by the Magistrate on an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 103 dated 20.5.2014 registered at Police Station City Rupnagar, District Rupnagar.
The petitioner was asked to place on record the statement made by the complainant which has been placed on record.
A complaint had been given by Ekta Gupta on which FIR No. 103 dated 20.5.2014 was registered at Police Station City Rupnagar. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2016.10.26 10:22 The complainant had also named the petitioner who was the mediator. The I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-27237 of 2016 (O&M) -2-
allegations were that the complainant's husband Munish Kumar was having extra marital affair with his real sister-in-law and the mediator knew this fact. The allegations were also levelled against the petitioner that some dowry had been given to her. The complainant had narrated an incident of 7.8.2013 and the complainant had spoken about the presence of the petitioner and that the petitioner had also beaten her on that day. The police has filed a final report and did not challan the petitioner. After the statement of the complainant had been recorded, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed which was allowed and the petitioner was summoned as an additional accused. Aggrieved by the order, a revision was preferred which has been dismissed.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner at great length and I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Courts below. Both the Courts below have noted that there were reasons for issuing the process as there were specific allegations levelled against the petitioner. The complainant had alleged that the petitioner was recipient of the dowry articles. At the stage of summoning of the additional accused, the evidence has not to be evaluated on merits. Considering the principles laid down in ' Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab and others, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 623' , I find no merit in the petition.
Petition is dismissed in limine.
(ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE
October 25, 2016 Gurpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No
Gurpreet Singh Bhatia 2016.10.26 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the是高 Court was right in failing to find any infirmity in the lower court order summoning the petitioner as an additional accused.
Whether the allegations of dowry receipt at the stage of summoning necessitate a revision dispensing with the order.
Whether the summary of evidence showed sufficient ground to issue process against the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C..
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hardeep Singh versus State of Punjab and others, 2014(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 623Explained¶21
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Singla @ Raj Rani
State of Punjab
Anita Chaudhry
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
