GURMINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of FIR No.64 dated 18.06.2008 for offence under Sections 293, 294, 509, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 52/52-A, 53, 68-A of Copy Right Act and Section 67 of Information Technology Act registered at Police Station Dialpura, District Bathinda and proceedings emanating therefrom.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner and one Charna Singh have been summoned as additional accused during trial in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "the Code"). It is further submitted that the petitioner and Charna Singh were kept in column No.2 in the report under Section 173 of the Code and the challan was presented against Vijay Kumar and Bhupinder Singh, husband of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the present FIR is off shoot of FIR No.34 dated 04.04.2008 for offence under Sections 376, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Dyalpura at the instance of one Jagjit Kaur against Dr.Bhupinder Singh, husband of the petitioner. As per allegations in the said FIR, the husband of the petitioner committed sexual intercourse with Jagjit Kaur on the pretext that he would marry her after getting divorce from his wife and also sent her abroad after taking money. The present case was registered on the basis of secret information and allegations against the petitioner are that the CDs of Jagjit Kaur and husband of the petitioner were prepared and the petitioner allegedly threw one CD in the house of Surjit Kaur @ Sukhjit Kaur, mother of Jagjit Kaur to defame Jagjit Kaur.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer for assailing order dated 26.08.2011 passed by the trial Court in summoning the petitioner as an additional accused for offence under Sections 294, 293, 509, 120-B IPC. It is argued that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error and illegality in holding that as there is incriminating material available on file against the accused kept in column No.2 in the testimony of Surjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh, the Court is left with no alternative but to accept the application under Section 319 of the Code. According to counsel, the learned trial Court has not examined application under Section 319 of the Code in the light of principles culled out in catena of judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in regard to scope of summoning a person to face trial with the accused already before the Court. There is no such finding recorded by the trial Court that keeping in view the material brought on record in the testimony of Surjit Kaur and Ranjit Singh (though Surjit Kaur has been wrongly referred to as a complainant), there is reasonable prospect of conviction of the petitioner, thus, the order passed by the trial Court cannot be allowed to sustain. It is further submitted that the order passed by the trial Court may be set aside and the matter may be remitted to the Court concerned for decision afresh in the light of various judgments on the issue.