DARSHNA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Darshna wife of late Sudesh Kumar resident of village Jandiala, Patti Dhunni Ke, District Jalandhar has filed the present revision petition against order dated 20.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the Court has not charged respondents No.2 and 3, namely, Prince Dhingra and his wife Angel Dhingra for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC.

(2.) Briefly stated, an FIR No.356 dated 20.12.2013 under Sections 307 and 452 read with Section 34 IPC was registered at Police Station Sadar District Jalandhar against respondents No.2 and 3. As per the allegations in the FIR, the accused-respondents No.2 and 3 entered into the house of the petitioner-complainant at about 6.30 p.m. carrying a yellow coloured plasticcan filled with liquid. While respondent No.3 caught hold the complainant from her arms, respondent No.2 tied her mouth and sprinkled petrol on her arms. Meanwhile, son of the complainant, namely, Deepak Dhingra came there and on seeing him, respondents No.2 and 3 ran away from the spot. It is in these circumstances, the aforesaid FIR was registered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that dispute is between the mother on the one side and son and daughter-in-law on the other side. Taking into consideration the nature of offence, learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Session. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge has not charged respondents No.2 and 3 for the offence under Section 307 IPC, the offence which is triable by the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has completely overlooked the fact as well as the intention of respondents No.2 and 3 who did their best to kill the petitioner as they sprinkled petrol on her after entering into her house.