BHAWANI SHANKAR GAHLOT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision, the petitioner complainant Bhawani Shankar Gahlot has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 6.6.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Sessions Case No.14/2014 arising out of F.I.R. No.233/2013, P.S. Mahila Thana Bikaner whereby the application preferred by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the respondents No.2, 3 and 4 to face trial as co-accused for the offences under Sections 498A , 304B and 34 I.P.C. was rejected.

(2.) Prosecution allegations in brief are that Monika daughter of the petitioner herein was married to Nirmal Kumar Tanwar (the charge-sheeted accused) on 6.5.2013. It is alleged that wholesome dowry was given in the marriage but right from inception, all the matrimonial relatives including the husband were torturing Smt.Monika on account of dowry demands. On 1.12.2013, petitioner Bhawani Shanker's younger sister-in-law received a call from Monika's sister-in-law Rakhi that Monika was seriously ill. On this, the first informant and other family members rushed to the hospital and came to know that Monika had passed away. The first informant Bhawani Shankar (Monika's father) lodged a report on the very same day at 5.30 PM at the Police Station Mahila Thana Bikaner alleging therein that Nirmal Kumar, husband of Monika, Jeth Pawan Kumar, Jethani Rekha and Nanad Rakhi were indulged in harassing and humiliating Smt.Monika for demand of dowry. Monika was pregnant at the time of her death and all the matrimonial relatives including the respondents herein and her husband were responsible for her unnatural death within one year of her marriage with Nirmal Kumar. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No.233/2013 was registered and investigation commenced. The Investigating Officer, after conducting thorough investigation filed a charge-sheet only against Nirmal Kumar and Pawan Kumar with the conclusion that only these two persons were responsible for instigating the deceased to commit suicide. The case was committed to the court of Sessions from where it was transferred to the court of the learned Special Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases), Bikaner for trial. 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution whereafter, the application for summoning additional accused came to be moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the trial court and was rejected by order dated 6.6.2016 which is under challenge in the instant revision. Notice of the revision was served on the respondents, who are represented by learned counsel Shri Vineet Jain.

(3.) Shri S.K.Verma learned counsel representing the petitioner complainant vehemently urged that the learned trial court committed grave error in facts as well as law while rejecting the application moved on behalf of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the respondents herein as additional accused in the case. He contended that the petitioner first informant and numerous other witnesses have made specific allegations against the respondents regarding the harassment and humiliation meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry. The cruel behaviour of the accused was to such grave extent that Monika committed suicide while carrying a child in her womb within a year of her marriage with the principal accused Nirmal Kumar. He relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in 2014 Cr.L.R. (SC) 310 and urged that the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge in the impugned order for turning down the prayer of the prosecution to summon the respondents as additional accused in the case is absolutely flimsy and farfetched. As per him, the trial Judge committed grave error while attaching significance to the rejection of the earlier application preferred by the prosecution under Section 190 Cr.P.C. He contended that the said application was rejected by the committing Magistrate whereas the present application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. after evidence had been recorded at the trial. The evidence so recorded gives ample inferences so as to establish involvement of the left out matrimonial relatives in the crime. As per Shri Verma, the facts and ratio of Hardeep Singh's judgment (supra) clearly apply to the present case at all fours and hence, the impugned order should be set aside and the respondents be summoned to face trial in the case for the offences mentioned above.