KUSUM LATA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been directed against order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani whereby order dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P -4) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani summoning the private respondents (respondent Nos. 2 to 4) as additional accused to face trial for offence under Sections 498 -A, 406, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") has been set aside. Kusum Lata (petitioner herein) lodged FIR No. 331 dated 28.12.2009 for offence under Sections 498 -A, 406, 506 IPC against her husband, father -in -law, mother -in -law and brothers -in -law namely Sandeep and Vikas raising allegations that articles of her stridhan were misappropriated and she was subject to torture, beatings and maltreatment on account of demand of a luxury car by her husband and his family members. After investigation, challan was presented against her husband and mother -in -law, whereas the remaining accused namely, Jagdish Chander, Sandeep and Vikas were kept in column No. 2 of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short " the Code") as they were found innocent during investigation and inquiries conducted by the officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. After examination of the petitioner as a witness in the Court, the learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 8.8.2011 summoned Jagdish Chander, father -in -law, Sandeep and Vikas, brothers -in -law of the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code. Jagdish Chander and others impugned order dated 8.8.2011 by way of revision which was allowed by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide order dated 29.11.2012 impugned in the present petition.

(2.) ON 1.3.2013, this Court passed an order and notice of motion was issued qua Sandeep only.

(3.) COUNSEL for the contesting respondents, on the contrary, contends that the learned trial Magistrate committed a serious error in summoning Jagdish Chander and others including Sandeep to face trial along with persons already before the Court without properly and correctly appreciating the scope of interference under Section 319 of the Code. It is further submitted that the error committed by the trial Magistrate was rectified by the Court in revision and the Court has given detailed reasoning to set aside order passed by the trial Court. It is further submitted that it was noticed by the Court in revision that Kusum Lata petitioner had admitted during her cross -examination that she along with her husband Sanjay were residing in a separate house and during investigation, the Investigating Officer found that it was a case of dispute between husband and wife. The Court further took into consideration that Sandeep is working as a teacher and he was married in the year 2003, having two school going children and they both were drawing handsome salary having separate card for cooking gas as well as ration and their own vehicles.