SONIA SUHAG Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the JMIC Gurugram , whereby an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., in case FIR No. 256 dated 30.07.2009 registered under Sections 498A , 406 , 323 and 506 of the IPC, has been dismissed.

(2.) In order to understand the checkered history of the case and the revision petition arising hereunder, a few facts need to be noticed. A marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and Parmod Kumar on

(3.) 07.2002. A matrimonial dispute arose between the parties which started the onset of this bitter litigation. The matter was compromised between the parties and the petitioner herein went back to her matrimonial home on the assurance given that she would be treated with due love and respect. However on 01.01.2008, a scuffle took place between the parties which led to the lodging of an FIR No. 7 under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC on 03.01.2008 against the complainant and her father. Since the dispute could not be resolved amicably, FIR No.256 dated 30.07.2009 was registered on the basis of complaint made by petitioner-complainant against her husband Parmod, her parents-in-law, her brother-in-law Manoj, and other family members namely Devender, Ruchi and Vinod with allegations of demand of dowry, harassment, cruelty etc. Manoj, Devender, Ruchi and Vinod were found innocent during investigation and only the husband and parents-in- law of the petitioner were summoned to face trial. The petitioner herein stepped into the witness box as PW-3 and reiterated the allegations as set out in the FIR while also submitting that respondent No. 2 Manoj had made an attempt to attack her. This statement was recorded on 01.08.2014 and, thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning Manoj and others, not chargesheeted as accused, which application was dismissed by the JMIC by an order dated 24.09.2014, subsequently confirmed by order dated 25.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram. The dismissal of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the orders passed there under were challenged by the petitioner in CRM-M-35582-2015 before this High Court in Sonia Suhag vs. State of Haryana . The High Court relying upon a judgment rendered in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab dismissed the revision petition by order dated 05.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner once again moved an application on 23.01.2017 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon Manoj as an accused in the said proceedings. In the application, it was stated that the complainant while stepping into the witness box had specifically attributed respondent No. 2 (person sought to be summoned) with causing injuries and assaulting the complainant in an incident which occurred on 26.12.2007. It was further averred in the application, that a complaint was filed by her father to In-Charge, Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram (Annexure P-4). Factum of injuries on the person of the complainant has been proved by PW-21 Dr. Mukesh Khattar who had treated the petitioner on 26.12.2007 and had also stated that the petitioner had suffered perforation in the right ear. Other allegations of cruelty attributed to respondent No. 2 were also set out and, in this background, prayer was made for summoning of respondent No. 2. The application filed under section 319 Cr.P.C was dismissed by the JMIC by an order dated 06.02.2017 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that there was concealment of facts as it had not been brought to the notice of the Court that an earlier application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon respondent No. 2 has already been dismissed. It is also noticed by both the Courts below that no additional evidence had been brought on to the record to warrant summoning of the respondent to face trial. Aggrieved against the dismissal of the application, the instant petition has been filed. 3. Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that from the very first instance there have been specific allegations against respondent No. 2 Manoj that he had subjected the complainant-petitioner to cruelty, had physically abused her by slapping her on the face which resulted in perforation of the ear drum and, therefore, he should have been summoned as an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. It is also argued that evidence has been led of Dr. Mukesh Khattar PW-21 and medical prescription Exhibit PW 21/A which would prove the averments made. It is submitted that the Courts below have not decided the application on merits and have dismissed it on the grounds of concealment of facts. It is argued that the order passed by the Courts below dismissing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is part of the current proceedings available on the record of the file and, therefore, there is no concealment.