Criminal Revision No.583 of 2007 :1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No.583 of 2007
Date of Decision: September 17, 2008
Surinder Pal & another
...Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.A.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab,
for the State.
Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate,
for the complainant.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioners, who stand summoned under Section 319
Cr.P.C. to face prosecution for offences under Section 304-B/34 IPC,
Criminal Revision No.583 of 2007 :2 :
have filed this revision petition to impugn the said order.
The petitioners were shown in column No.2 in the report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Amarjit Dhingra has now been examined
as a prosecution witness and upon conclusion of his examination-in-
chief, the prosecution moved an application for summoning the
petitioners as an additional accused for their trial with accused Zishin
Arora and Parvesh Kumari, who were facing prosecution in this case.
Amarjit Dhingra (PW-1) has deposed that he gave sufficient dowry at
the time of marriage of his daughter Jai Bharti with Zishin Arora. He
has further deposed that about six months prior to the occurrence,
Surinder Pal (petitioner No.1), Zishin Arora, Parvesh Kumari and
Bhavneesh Arora (petitioner No.2) had raised demand of
Rs.1,50,000/- to start their boutique business. On refusal, these
persons had started harassing the daughter of the witness. As per
PW-1, his daughter had come to his house on 2.9.2006 to ask for
Rs.50,000/- for starting of optical business. The witness had sent her
back saying that he will make arrangement. The daughter left telling
the father that she was being harassed by the above-named four
persons. Having noticed this version of the witness, Sessions Judge
has simply recorded that from the statement and the documents
attached with the challan, it is evident that petitioners Surinder Pal
and Bhavneesh Arora had been harassing the deceased and, thus,
has summoned them to face trial as an additional accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
summoning of an additional accused to face trial is an extra-ordinary
power and is required to be used sparingly. Hon’ble Supreme Court
in number of judgments has prescribed the standard which must be
Criminal Revision No.583 of 2007 :3 :
met before additional accused is summoned to face trial in exercise
of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order certainly is
cryptic in its nature and does not give any indication if the court, while
summoning the petitioners, as an additional accused, had satisfied
itself from the record that the evidence now produced on record
would meet the standard as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Simply stating that from the statement and the documents, it is
evident that petitioners had been harassing the deceased would not
be sufficient to indicate if the court has applied its mind to the
evidence in the light of legal principles settled by Hon’ble Supreme
Court. In the case of Michael Machado and another Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 75,
court has given guidelines for exercise of this discretion. This case
was cited before the Trial Court besides other judgments.
In Michael Machado’s case (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that basic requirement of invoking Section
319 Cr.P.C. is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence
collected during trial or in the enquiry that some other person who is
not arraigned as an accused in that case has committed an offence
for which that person could be tried together with the accused
already arraigned. It was further held that it is not enough that the
Court entertained some doubt from the evidence. In other word the
Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already
collected regarding two aspects firstly, that the person has committed
an offence and secondly that for such an offence the other person as
well can be tried alongwith already arraigned accused. Viewed in this
background of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it
Criminal Revision No.583 of 2007 :4 :
is to be seen if the evidence that has been given can lead to
reasonable satisfaction to the effect that the petitioners have
committed an offence and that they can be tried alongwith the
persons already arraigned as accused in this case. No doubt, what is
conferred under this Section on the Court is a discretion and this
discretion is to be exercised to achieve criminal justice. It was also
observed in Michael Machado’s case (supra) that quality of
evidence before the Court should be such a type that a Court could
even be hopeful that there was reasonable prospect of newly added
accused being convicted.
The trial court apparently has not appreciated the
evidence and the material from the point of view of standard as laid
down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Michael Machado’s case
(supra). As already observed, this is an extra-ordinary power and is
required to be used sparingly. Simply because witness has deposed
that petitioners had also harassed the deceased apparently would
not be sufficient material to satisfy the tests laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Michael Machado’s case
(supra).
Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained and
is set-aside. The case would go back to the trial court to re-do the
exercise and for deciding afresh to see if the evidence that has been
led before the court would satisfy the tests laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Michael Machado’s case (supra) or the other
judgments that may be placed before the court and then to decide if
the petitioners are required to be summoned or not.
Criminal Revision No.583 of 2007 :5 :
It is made clear that the court would be at liberty to pass
any order in accordance with law as no opinion on merit is being
expressed by this court. The present petition is allowed in the above
terms.
September 17, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE