TEJWANT SINGH Vs. JASDEEP SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tejwant Singh, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 12.10.2009 ( Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal vide which the court has not summoned the respondents for an offence punishable under section 307 IPC as well as the order dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Karnal, vide which his revision against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.

(2.) Tejwant Singh, the petitioner married his daughter Navneet Kaur with Jasdeep, respondent no.1 on 15.09.2007 according to Sikh rites . Navneet Kaur gave birth to a female child on 04.06.2008. Though a lot of money was spent in the marriage, in which a BMW car was given as dowry, the respondents were not happy with the same and kept harassing Navneet Kaur for further dowry. The respondents even sought 1/3rd share of Navneet Kaur in her father's property and in lieu thereof they sought Rs.1.5 crores from her. The allegations are also that the respondents had been administering some medicines to Navneet Kaur, which were acting as slow poison with the intention to kill her and on account of the same, the complainant claimed section 307 IPC to be attracted to the case. It is the Magistrate who did not summon the respondents for this offence and the revision petition preferred by the complainant against that order also failed before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Karnal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was ample evidence on the record to prove that the respondents were administering some medicines to Navneet Kaur with a view to kill her. According to him, Dr. Baldev Raj, a private practitioner at Raj Clinic, Ram Nagar , Karnal appeared as CW-2 and Dr. Sanjeev Grover, Sr. Medical Officer, a member of the Board of three doctors, examined as CW-3 have categorically stated that the medicines given to Navneet Kaur were dangerous to life. According to him, this evidence was sufficient to show a prima-facie case against the respondents for an offence punishable under section 307 IPC. Citing case law in support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of a case titled as Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana and ors., 2011 2 RCR(Cri) 372. The facts in the reported case were entirely different where on account of the property dispute between the accused and the victim, the accused and his four companions entered the shop of the victim and assaulted him with a wooden handle and caused injuries on his head. He has also cited a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Girija Shankar v. State of U.P., 2004 1 RCR(Cri) 839. It is laid down in this case that bodily injury capable of causing death is not necessary to be shown in all cases to prove section 307 IPC and that the court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result was done with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances mentioned under section. The last decision cited before me is in Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2012 3 RCR(Cri) 595. The law laid down in this case is altogether different. The ratio of this decision is that the Magistrate while passing the order issuing process under section 204 Cr.P.C. need not pass a speaking order.