RAMANDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short issue that falls for consideration of this Court is,whether the impugned order dated 04.05.2015 passed by the learned Court below, under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), summoning the petitioner to face the criminal trial as an additional accused, in FIR No.100 dated 24.12.2011 under Sections 498-A/406 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District Kapurthala, is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 04.05.2015 (Annexure P-1), whereby the petitioner was summoned to face the criminal trial with the aid of Section 319 Cr.P.C., petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant criminal revision petition, praying for setting aside the impugned order. Notice of motion was issued and operation of the impugned order was stayed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is an order without jurisdiction, having been passed by the learned Court below, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2014 3 SCC 92. He further submits that petitioner is the sister-in-law of the complainant i.e. brother's wife of the husband of the complainant. Since the complainant had been residing with her parents in District Kapurthala, there was not even a remote scope for the petitioner to indulge in the commission of offence alleged against her. Since she had been living separately in a different district, she had no role to play. This was the reason that investigating agency rightly found the petitioner innocent. However, since the learned Court below had misdirected itself, while passing the impugned order, same is liable to be set aside. He prays for allowing the present petition.