NANDNI KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the order dated 17.1.2007 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge 1st, Munger in Sessions Case No. 53 of 2005 by which the learned trial court has summoned the petitioner for facing trial under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) IN the aforesaid sessions trial case on behalf of the prosecution a petition was filed under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for issuing summonses against Nandni Kumari, the petitioner, to face trial alongwith other accused persons. In this case under Sections 498A, 304B, 201 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, in the F.I.R. lodged against Satish Singh, Sunita Singh and Sadanand Singh, the main allegation is that of demand of dowry and Rs. 2 lacs. There was torture and intimidation to the daughter of the informant, threatening to give Rs. 2 lacs to the son -in -law of the informant or execute sale deed with regard to the house and lands. The daughter of the informant was brutally assaulted by the son -in -law and his mother and father who are also accused in this case and she was taken to Bhagalpur Hospital. The informant rushed to the house of the accused persons but this petitioner, who was alone in the house, refused to say anything. Incidentally the informant rushed to the Bhagalpur Hospital but he could not trace out his daughter. On the aforesaid written report the case was lodged under Sections 587, 304, 201 of the I.P.C. and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After submission of charge -sheet and commitment the case was transferred to the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1st, Munger for trial. The informant in his statement hfad not made any allegation against the petitioner. The wife of the informant made allegation against mother -in -law, father -in -law, husband and has not even raised any suspicion against the petitioner. During the trial, the wife of the informant, namely, P.W. 1 was examined, where for the first time, the name of the petitioner was introduced.

(3.) SIMILARLY the informant was examined as P.W. 3 and he too for the first time named the petitioner in the court. It has been submitted that it is settled law that power to summon an accused is an extraordinary power conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reason exists for taking cognizance against the other persons. In this case it appears that on submission of the learned Addl. P.P. and on a written petition summon was issued under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the petitioner as this petitioner did not give details of the deceased or accused persons. It has been submitted that she had full knowledge that the deceased at the time succumbed to injury but she concealed this fact only to misguide the informant. It has also been submitted that P.W. 1 Ganga Devi and P.W. 3 Ashok Mandal stated about the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime.