1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 1085 of 2009
Date of Decision: 7.7.2009
***
Sajjan Singh
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana & Ors.
.. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 24.2.2009
passed by the learned trial court by virtue of which his application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning and trial of Smt. Urmila along with
other accused has been dismissed.
The marriage of sister of petitioner namely Smt. Sunita was
solemnized with Bhoop Singh, the brother of Smt. Urmila on 22.2.2008.
Smt. Sunita was found dead in her matrimonial house on 16.8.2008. On the
basis of complaint made by the petitioner, case FIR No.129 dated 16.8.2008
was registered under Section 304-B read with Section 34 IPC. Although the
complainant in the said complaint named as many as eleven persons
including father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, husband’s brother and
sister and some other relatives, but after investigation the challan was
presented in the Court against father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and
brother-in-law while the remaining were found innocent.
During the trial, after the recording of examination-in-chief of
complainant as PW.1, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed
for summoning of Smt. Urmila, which, as noticed above, has been dismissed
by the trial court. Hence this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also
gone through the paper-book file carefully.
2
The provisions of Section 319 of the Code confers an extra
ordinary power and should not be easily resorted to. It is well settled that
sweep of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is limited as it is an enabling provision which
can be invoked only if there is convincing evidence disclosing the
complicity of the person other than the person (s) already arraigned as
accused. Admittedly, Smt. Urmila is married sister of husband of deceased
Smt. Sunita and is residing at a far off place in her matrimonial home. The
perusal of FIR as well as examination-in-chief of complainant though
reveals that the complainant has stated therein that sister-in-law was also
instrumental in demand of dowry and harassment to his sister Sunita, but by
merely mentioning the name of a person as an accused, criminal liability
cannot be fastened upon the same. There has to be some other material on
record which may prompt the Court to believe that the person so accused
has complicity in the offence and her/his conviction is likely to result in the
eventuality of facing the trial, which is missing in this case. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75 (SC) has observed as under:-
“11. The basic requirements for invoking the above
section is that it should appear to the Court from the
evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some
other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that
case, had committed an offence for which that person
could be tried together with the accused already
arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained
some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of
another person in the offence. In other words, the Court
must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence
already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the
other person has committed an offence. Second is that for
such offence that other person could as well be tried
along with the already arraigned accused.
12. But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only
a discretion as could be discerned from the words “the
3Court may proceed against such person”. The
discretionary power so conferred should be exercised
only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court
should turn against another person whenever it comes
across evidence connecting that another person also with
the offence. A judicial exercise is called for keeping a
conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the
trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence
collected till then, and also the amount of time which the
Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be
remembered that there is no compelling duty on the
Court to proceed against other persons.”
In the above facts, no fault could be found with the approach of
the learned trial court while dismissing the application of the complainant
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The revision petition being without any merit is
dismissed in limine.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
July 7,2009
Jiten