JASWANT KAUR Vs. NEK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 7. During the trial of the case before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal against accused (1) Major Singh (2) Jagir Kaur and (3) Nachhatar Singh for the offences under Sections498-A, 304-B/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) respondents 1 to 7 were summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') after the statement of the petitioner was recorded in the Trial Court. However, at the time of framing of the charge, respondents were discharged. This is a revision against the said order.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is a prima facie evidence against respondent No. 1 under Section 304-B of the I. PC. He has drawn my attention to Annexure P-2, which is a copy of the application given by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal. It is alleged therein that the daughter of the petitioner always told her mat they had a neighbour named Nek Singh son of Sarwan Singh (respondent No. 1) who had illicit relations with her mother-in-law and that he always kept on sitting in the house of her daughter and used to taunt her and abuse her to bring more money from her parents. He was like a family member, and that her daughter told her that he used to harass her a lot. Whenever she complained to Major Singh or her mother-in-law, they used to take me side of Nek Singh. The question now is whether the provisions under Section 304-B, I. P. C. can be made applicable against Nek Singh if the allegations against him in the said application are treated as correct. There is no other evidence shown to me for involving Nek Singh as a relative. Section304-Borthei. P-C. reads as below:

(3.) AT this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that this respondent No. 1 can be again summoned and charged for the offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. The learned Counsel for the respondents argued that respondent No. 1 not being a relative of the husband is incapable of committing offence under Section 304-B of the I. P. C. and, therefore, he cannot be tried in this case even for offence under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. However, as I have held that the question of summoning and framing the charge under Section 201 I. P. C. , can be considered later if found proper, at this point can also be considered by the Trial Court at the later stage. I do not express any opinion on this submission made at this belated stage.