SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed by the present three petitioners against the impugned order dated 30.10.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide which while allowing the application filed by the State under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they have been summoned to face trial. Record reveals that while issuing notice of motion to the respondent-State, the proceedings before the trial court were stayed way Criminal Revision No. 1384 of 2000 -2- back on 20.11.2000. Brief facts:

(2.) At the instance of complainant Dharminder, the real brother of Sumitra Devi (since deceased), case FIR No. 13 dated 25.10.1999, under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC was registered against the petitioners, Maha Singh husband of petitioner no. 1 and Bhupinder the husband of deceased alleging that after solemnisation of the marriage with Bhupinder on 1.5.1993, the family members of her in-laws had started making demands. Sumitra Devi ultimately died an un-natural death on 22.10.1999. The allegation was that in fact she was killed and without informing the parents, her dead body was cremated. The police after registering the case under sections 304-B, 498-A, 201 IPC started the investigation and found the present petitioners to be innocent. Consequently, they were put in column no. 2. Subsequently, after recording of the statement Annexure P/3 of Dharminder (complainant), an application under C. for summoning the petitioners was moved and was allowed vide impugned order dated 30.10.2000 (Annexure P/1). Hence, this revision petition. I have heard Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Arora, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Mr. R.K.Jain, learned counsel for the complainant. Mr. Chaudhary submits that the approach of the learned trial court is totally illegal and contrary to the facts inasmuch as there was no Criminal Revision No. 1384 of 2000 -3- material before the trial court for the purpose of summoning the petitioners. The learned counsel then submits that Dharminder (PW4) has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that while making complaint to the police, he did not mention that the present petitioners used to raise demand of valuable articles or humiliate the deceased. According to him, the perusal of the substantive statement of Dharminder, the real brother of the deceased if seen in its totality does not warrant summoning of the petitioners and therefore, the learned trial court has mechanically passed the impugned order without there being any evidence against them. The learned counsel submits that petitioner no. 1 is mother-in-law whereas petitioner no. 2 is her son (younger brother of the husband) and petitioner no. 3 is married sister-in-law.

(3.) In support of his aforesaid contentions, Mr. Chaudhary relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75 and two judgments of this Court rendered in Surjit Kaur and others v. State of Punjab and another 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 565 and Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab 2006(2) RCR (Criminal) 359. Mr. Chaudhary then submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside inasmuch as it does not disclose which particular offence has been committed by the petitioners. Order of summoning has been passed at the back of the persons and therefore, they have a right to know the Criminal Revision No. 1384 of 2000 -4- offences for which they have been summoned. The learned trial court has simply observed that the petitioners be also summoned to face the trial through non-bailable warrants. This according to the learned counsel is a serious technical flaw and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside directing the trial court to keep the chapter open for the purpose of passing fresh order judiciously. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Kamaljit Kaur vs State of Punjab 1998(1) RCC 714.