- (1.) The present petition has been directed against order dated 16.10.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') for summoning the petitioners to face trial for offence charged against the accused already before the trial Court punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B (in the alternative under Sections 302) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') was allowed.
(2.) The brief backdrop of this case is that Neeti daughter of Azad Singh complainant (respondent No.2) was married to Naresh son of Dhanraj Sharma on 18.02.2012. Neeti died an unnatural death on 13.04.2013 during her stay in the matrimonial home. Azad Singh, the father of the deceased lodged FIR No.182 dated 13.04.2013 in Police Station Mujessar for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 120-B IPC on the allegations that his daughter was harassed and tortured on account of insufficient dowry and demand of Rs.5 lacs for construction of a bigger house and the deceased revealed her tale of woe during her visits to the parental home as well as telephonically. The deceased was pregnant for about six months. On 12.04.2013 at about 06.30 AM, the complainant received a telephonic call from his daughter that her in-laws were planning to kill her and asked him to reach her matrimonial home. The complainant statedly visited the house of the deceased and wanted to bring her back but on persuasion by one of the relatives telephonically namely Gajender Sharma (petitioner) the deceased was left in the matrimonial home. During discussion, in the presence of Gajender Sharma on 12.04.2013 in the late evening at the house of the deceased (in-law) it was resolved that Neeti and her husband Naresh Kumar would hire private accommodation and they would stay there separately from other members of her in-laws family.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners contends that Naresh Kumar (husband), Dhanraj (father-in-law) and Santosh (mother-in-law) of the deceased victim were challaned by the police and they have been charged for various offences and are facing trial. The petitioners namely Gajender Sharma (a relative of in-laws family), Surender Sharma (Jija/brother-inlaw), Priyanka (unmarried sister) and Sonia, married sister (wife of Surender Sharma) of Naresh Kumar have been summoned as additional accused under Section 319 of the Code after examination of three witnesses namely Dr. Shamshad from Central Hospital and Research Centre, Faridabad PW1, Dr.Smiriti Dhami, Medical Officer PW2 and Azad Singh complainant PW3. To assail the order passed by the learned trial Court, it is argued with vehemence that operative part of the order is sketchy and bereft of reasoning, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain. Further dilating, it is submitted that summoning of a person to face criminal trial for a serious offence under Section 304-B IPC and in the alternative under Section 302 IPC requires the Court to be more circumspect and cautions keeping in view gravity of the offence and implications for the accused which may result in depriving them of their personal liberty, particularly in the circumstances that jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code is extra-ordinary in nature and can be used sparingly. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error rather illegality in taking into consideration the supplementary statement of Azad Singh complainant and statement of Ajit Kumar Gandhi recorded under Section 161 of the Code which in no terms can be said to be material collected by the Court during inquiry or trial within the meaning of Section 319 of the Code. It is further submitted that there are no allegations against petitioners Gajender Sharma, Surender and Sonia that they ever made any demand of dowry or harassed / maltreated the victim in connection with the said demand to constitute offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. Further submitted that there are also no allegations against the petitioners in regard to entrustment of any dowry articles or misappropriation thereof to summon them for offence under Section 406 IPC. The last submission made by counsel is that statement made by Azad Singh complainant before the Court does not prove the petitioners to be a party to any conspiracy to commit murder of Neeti as has been observed by the trial Court in para 9 of the impugned order.;