Brief Facts
- The facts of the case are that a prosecution was launched at the instance of respondent No.2 for subjecting her to cruelty and maltreatment during her matrimony. Though in the FIR, she levelled allegations of causing injuries and forcibly making her to swallow contaminated/poisonous substances and the role of the petitioners were also mentioned, however, after conducting thorough investigation, due reasons were given by the Investigation Agency and only the husband of the respondent No.2 was charge-sheeted for committing offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 325 of IPC.
- The learned trial Court vide order dated 25.11.2017, framed charges under Section 498-A, 323 and 325 of IPC.
- An application came to be moved on behalf of the Respondent No.2 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for arraigning the petitioners also as an accused party in light of the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Judge allowed the application.
- Aggrieved by the order booking the petitioners by taking resort to Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners made a challenge by moving a criminal revision petition; however, the same has been dismissed and as such both the orders are under challenge before this Court.
Issues
- Whether the accused can be criminalized on the basis of mere improvement in the court statement of the victim under section 319 crpc?
Held
- The Court allowed the Petition and opined that the legal aspect has not been considered wisely by the Courts below. The Court quashed the summoning order under section 319 CrPC, while observing that –
- Court relied on the judgment of Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 289, and held opined that the Investigating Officer was never made to challenge which is in an unequivocal and unambiguous term has exonerated the petitioners. No challenge has been made to the report of the investigation.
- The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence and proceeded in the matter only against accused-husband, however, no challenge was made by the respondent for booking the petitioners also by taking resort to Section 190 read with Section 204 of Cr.P.C.
- After examining eight witnesses in the trial, the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has been moved which is allowed by the learned trial Judge in a mechanical manner. Simply mentioning name or levelling vague allegations would not be sufficient to book any person under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
- Court is of the firm opinion that the material brought on record must be scrutinized to some extent so as to make a firm opinion whether sufficient grounds are there or not to array a new person for joining the trial. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. provides for impleadment of additional accused so that they may be tried together with the principal accused. The FIR in this case was lodged in the year 2017. The trial had progressed to a great extent. The material witnesses have been examined. At this juncture, holding the trial, booking a new person and then ordering de novo trial, in my firm opinion would be nothing but doing so would be a travesty of justice.
- Court held that the learned trial Judge has committed an error of law in allowing the application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge was expected to examine the legality, correctness so also the propriety of the order passed by the trial Court, but he utterly failed to do so rather casually concurred his opinion with the learned Magistrate.
Relevant Para No.
- 7-8