SATNAM KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAGWAN Dass complainant performed the marriage of his daughter Jasbir Kaur alias Raj Bala with Gurbachan Singh son of Himmat Singh a resident of village Nasirpur in the year 1987, according to Hindu rites. Raj Bala gave birth to two sons, the elder being 2 years old and at the time of occurrence the younger son was 5 months old. Husband and mother in law of Jasbir Kaur were not satisfied with the dowry given to her and at the time of the birth of the second son she was compelled to bring a pair of gold ear rings and Rs. 1000/- in cash from her parents. Her parents were not in a position to fulfill their demands so she was not properly treated. On 19.8.1990 at about 7 p.m. Jasbir Kaur set herself ablaze by sprinkling kerosene oil and died. On these allegations Bhagwan Dass father of the deceased lodged a report against Gurbachan Singh and his mother Satnam Kaur under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Sadar, Ambala.

(2.) INVESTIGATION in the case was conducted and challan was presented in court against Gurbachan Singh accused alone. Additional Superintendent of Police, who verified the investigation, found that Satnam Kaur lived separately from her son and she was not present at the time of the occurrence, so her name was shown in column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for Short the Code). After the case was committed and it was pending for framing of charge, Bhagwan Dass father of the deceased moved an application for summoning Satnam Kaur so that she may stand trial alongwith her son Gurbachan Singh. The application was opposed by Gurbachan Singh but after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the parties, the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala allowed the application and summoned Satnam Kaur to stand trial "Aggrieved by this order dated 4.9.1991 Satnam Kaur filed the present Revision Petition.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code did not apply to the case of the petitioner, as she was not an accused at that stage and if the Court wanted to summon the petitioner as an accused, then under Section 319 of the Code it was obliged to record the evidence of any witness and without recording any evidence no order regarding summoning the petitioner could be passed. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Mahant Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 288.