POONAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Poonam, married sister-in-law of Kawaljit Kaur complainant has preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No. 361 dated 23.9.2001 under Section 406/498-A IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 10.3.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar under Section 319 Cr.P.C. While allowing the above said application filed by Kanwaljit Kaur complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class has opted to join the petitioner as an accused on the basis of the statement of Kawaljit Kaur recorded in Court to the effect that the petitioner used to torture her on the ground of demand of dowry from her. Initially the complainant had roped in all the family members of her husband in a criminal case under Section 406/498-A IPC alleging that she was married to Ravinder Singh son of Amarjit Singh. A large number of dowry articles worth Rs. 1.00 lac were given along with gold sets etc. A sum of Rs. 2.00 lac was paid in cash. On the very next day of the marriage, her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, married sister-in-law Poonam (petitioner) and brother-in-law started torturing her for dowry. The petitioner allegedly used to visit the matrimonial house to interfere in her matrimonial life. She was given beatings when she was pregnant. Her husband and the petitioner brought one nurse on the pretext that her abortion was to be carried out, to which she refused. Vague allegations against the petitioner that she along with her family members threatened to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her and that they gave beatings to her.

(2.) SO far as the summoning of the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 75 (SC) has laid down certain parameters holding that the discretionary power should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice and the Court should not turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then. It was observed that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons. The extra-ordinary power conferred on the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against other person against whom action has been taken. In Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka, 2004(3) Apex Criminal 643 : 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 678, it has been held that the Court should not summon a person as additional accused and pass an order mechanically merely on the ground that some evidence had come on record implicating the person.

(3.) IT was specifically observed in paragraph 14 of the judgment in Michael Machado's case (supra) that unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned, the Court should refrain from allowing an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add additional accused.