High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Gurjeet Kaur & another v. The State of Punjab - CRM-58056.m-2005  RD-P&H 3221 (17 May 2006)
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH.
DECIDED ON : 21.10.2005.
Gurjeet Kaur & another Vs The State of Punjab QUORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA.
Present : Mr.R.S.Ghuman, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
This petition has been filed, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for setting aside the order dated 6.9.2005 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr, and order dated 25.5.2005 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur.
The petitioners were cited as accused in FIR No.12, dated 14.1.2003, registered under Sections 326/324/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Balachaur. After investigation, the police presented a report, under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure placing the petitioners in column No.2. During the course of the trial, an application was filed by the prosecution, under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C, for summoning the petitioners to stand trial, alongwith already arraigned accused.
Vide order dated 25.5.2005, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Crl.Misc.No.58056.M of 2005 ::2::
Balachaur allowed the application and summoned the petitioners to stand trial alongwith the other accused.
The petitioners preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr. Vide order dated 6.9.2005, the revision was dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned orders are illegal, null and void, violative of the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C and therefore, liable to be set aside. It is vehemently argued that there is no evidence on record that could warrant the summoning of the petitioners, in the exercise of powers, under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the impugned orders do not meet the parameters of an order, required to be passed, under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The trial Court has failed to record a finding that there is a reasonable prospect that the case, set out against the petitioners, would end in their conviction. In the absence of any such finding, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
Reliance for the aforementioned proposition is placed upon Michael Machado & Anr vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, 2000(2) RCR (Criminal) 75, Gurpal Singh vs State of Haryana, 2001(2) RCR (Criminal) 580, Satish Kumar & others vs State of Punjab & others, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 335, Meena Devi vs Narender, 2003(4) RCR (Criminal) 849, and Isham Singh & Ors vs State of Haryana etc., 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 279.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, as also the impugned Crl.Misc.No.58056.M of 2005 ::3::
The aforementioned FIR was lodged against the petitioners and their co-accused. After investigation, the police filed a report, under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C, placing the petitioners in column No.2. During the course of the trial, the complainant appeared in a witness box and specifically deposed that Gurjeet Kaur (petitioner No.1) and Kashmir Kaur (petitioner No.2) began abusing and beating his wife Manjit Kaur. He further deposed that Gurjeet Kaur also gave a Danda blow to his nose. The injury, received by the complainant, to his nose, is corroborated by the medical evidence. This fact has been noticed by the revisional Court.
Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts, the trial Court summoned the petitioners to stand trial alongwith their co-accused. In my considered opinion, the aforementioned evidence was sufficient, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to warrant the summoning of the petitioners, under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. A contention, raised by counsel for the petitioners that the trial Court has failed to record any finding that there was a reasonable prospect of the case, against the petitioners, ending in their conviction, in my considered opinion, does not merit acceptance. The evidence in the present case clearly makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners. While considering an application, under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C, the Court is required to consider, on the basis of evidence on record, whether there exists a prima facie Crl.Misc.No.58056.M of 2005 ::4::
case that would warrant summoning of the accused. The mere absence of the words "reasonable prospect of the case ending in conviction", in my considered opinion, would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners for the purpose of quashing the impugned orders. The trial Court, while considering the application, under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C, has clearly noticed that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, which allegations are substantiated by the statement on oath of Pavittar Singh-complainant and, therefore, the trial Court rightly held that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners.
There can be no quarrel with the law, laid down in the judgments, relied upon by counsel for the petitioners. However, the aforementioned judgments do not advance the case of the petitioners, as there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders that would warrant interference by this Court.
In view of what has been stated above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
( RAJIVE BHALLA )
October 21, 2005. JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.