MONIA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-6-24
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on June 28,2013

Smt. Monia Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alok Singh, J. - (1.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that FIR was lodged by the petitioner under Section 498A, 325, 323, 506 IPC wherein police after investigation submitted charge -sheet only against Kanwaljeet Singh Wadhwa (husband of the petitioner). During trial, petitioner moved an application to summon Lochan Singh, Swarn Kaur, Gurdeep Singh, Paramjeet Singh, Parvinder Kaur as additional accused. Learned trial court was pleased to dismiss the application and revision arising therefrom was also dismissed by the Revisional Court. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present petition. I have heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Advocate for the respondent No. 2 to 6, Mr. R.K. Sah, AGA for the State and have carefully perused the record.
(2.) FIR was lodged by the petitioner after 16 years of her marriage alleging demand of dowry and harassment pursuant thereto. In a matrimonial criminal dispute, tendency of people to implicate all the family members of husband should not be lost sight of while taking cognizance against the relatives and family members of husband; court should be vigilant and careful and should examine specific role of in -laws and relatives of husband; floating and general statements implicating the family members and relatives of husband should not be lightly accepted as gospel truth, at the summoning stage. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Michael v. CBI reported in : 2000 (3) SCC 262 in paragraph 11 and 12 has held as under: 11. The basic requirements for invoking the above section is that it should appear to the court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well be tried along with the already arraigned accused. 12. But even then, what is conferred on the court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words the court may proceed against such person. The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that another person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the court to proceed against other persons. Having perused the entire record, I find learned trial court was correct in declining the request to summon the relatives of the husband. I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders impugned. Therefore, petition is devoid of merit and as such, is dismissed. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.