Kavita Kumari vs. State

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Crl.M.C. No. 696/2010
Date of Decision: 14th February, 2013
KAVITA KUMARI ....Petitioner

Through: Mr. S.K. Bhalla, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ORS. …Respondents

Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for State
Ms. Kamlesh Shambharwal,
Advocate for R-2 & R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J:
This petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(‘Cr.P.C.’ in short) and
Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated
21st January, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby
the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4th
August, 2009 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing
petitioner’s application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
Crl. M.C. No. 696/2010 & Crl. M.A. No. 2523/2010 Page 1 of 5
2. Background of the case may briefly be stated. The petitioner got
married to the respondent no. 2 herein on 16.04.1994. The petitioner’s
grievance had been that she was being treated with cruelty for bringing
insufficient dowry and she had been beaten up also by her in-laws many
times. On 29.9.1998, the petitioner alleged in her complaint after referring to
an incident of assault on her by her in-laws on 16th February,1998, her
husband(respondent no.2 herein), father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-
in-law(respondent no.3 herein) again tried to end her life by severely beating
her. Her mother-in-law had allegedly caught hold of her while her father-in-
law, husband and brother-in-law had severely beaten her with iron rods and
fists. The petitioner got herself medically examined from Ram Manohar
Lohia Hospital vide MLC No. E/120090/98. The police, however, did not
register her complaint against these persons and so she was forced to file a
complaint dated 4th May,2009 before the Metropolitan Magistrate and in that
complaint she also moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. for
directing the police to register an FIR against her in-laws. Then under the
orders of the Magistrate passed under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. the police
registered the FIR No. 306/2000 under Sections 323/324 and investigated
the matter and charge-sheeted petitioner’s husband , father-in-law, mother-
in-law and brother-in-law under Section 323/324/34 of the Indian Penal
Code (‘IPC’ for short).
3. The learned Magistrate in whose Court the police had filed the
charge-sheet discharged all the four accused persons vide order dated 11th
June, 2003 holding that the offence under Section 324 IPC was not made out
and even though offence under Section 323 IPC was made out but the
accused could not be tried since cognizance of that offence could not have
been taken beyond the prescribed period of limitation for this offence. The
petitioner-complainant challenged that order before the Sessions Court by
filing a revision petition. The revisional Court maintained the Magistrate’s
order of discharge in respect of the husband and brother-in-law of the
petitioner-complainant(respondents no. 2 and 3 herein) while discharge of
her father-in-law and mother-in-law was set aside and they were ordered to
be charged under Section 323/34 IPC vide order dated 12th March, 2003. It
was held that there was no evidence of respondents no. 2 and 3 herein
having shared common intention with their parents in causing injuries to the
petitioner-complainant. That order of the revisional Court was not
challenged further by the petitioner-complainant and so it attained finality.
Thereafter, the trial of the petitioner’s father-in-law and mother-in-law
started in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
4. During the trial the petitioner-complainant was examined as a

prosecution witness(PW-1) and in her statement before the Court she
reiterated on oath the allegations which she had earlier levelled against all
the four accused persons, including the two discharged accused, respondents
no. 2 and 3 herein. In view of the petitioner-complainant having reiterated
the allegations against the two discharged accused persons as contained in
FIR also the petitioner moved an application dated 30th June, 2005 under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the trial Court for summoning them also to face trial
alongwith her father-in-law and mother-in-law. That application was
dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 4th August,2009 on the
ground that no new evidence had come on record against the two discharged
accused and the complainant had reiterated whatever she had earlier alleged
against them in her complaint based on which no case for their trial was
earlier found to be made out. The Sessions Court in the revision petition
filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 21st January,2010 refused to
reverse that order of the trial Court and concurred with the reasoning of the
trial Court for not summoning the two discharged accused, respondents no.
2 and 3 herein.
5. The petitioner-complainant then challenged the revisional Court’s

order by filing the present petition.
6. Relying heavily upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

“Kishun Singh vs State of Bihar”, 1993(1) Crimes 494, which has been
noted by the revisional Court also in the impugned order, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the respondents no.2
and 3 herein had earlier been discharged they could still be summoned as
accused by the trial Court in exercise of its powers under Section 319
Cr.P.C. since the petitioner had in her evidence in Court had deposed on
oath about the allegations which she had earlier made against the accused
and on the basis of that evidence respondents no.2 and 3 could be
summoned.
7. However, in my view the said judgment relied upon by the

petitioner’s counsel is of no advantage to her since in that case the question
whether an accused who at one stage was charge-sheeted by the police but
was discharged by the Court at the stage of charge after finding no case to
be made out could again be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the
same material/allegations which were earlier not found to be sufficient for
framing of charge was not the subject matter of that case. The question
before the Supreme Court was whether Section 319 Cr.P.C. could be
invoked against anyone before evidence is adduced during the trial and it
was held that unless some evidence is actually recorded during the trial
Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. The question involved in the present
case is, however, squarely covered by another decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of “Sohan Lal vs State of Rajasthan”, AIR
1990 Supreme Court 2158. In the said case also some discharged accused
were sought to be summoned under Section 319 Cr. P.C. and were
summoned by the trial Court and that order was upheld by the High Court.
But it was held by the Supreme Court that if some accused is charge-sheeted
and then discharged Section 319 Cr. P.C. will not apply to him and
consequently the order of the trial Court summoning the discharged accused
and the order of the High Court affirming that order were set aside.
8. So, there is no scope of any interference in the present case with the
orders of the two Courts below which have refused to exercise discretionary
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.K. BHASIN, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2013

Kavita Kumari vs. State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Kavita Kumari vs. State

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Kavita Kumari vs. State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Crl.M.C. No. 696/2010

Date of Decision: 14th February, 2013

KAVITA KUMARI ....Petitioner

STATE & ORS. …Respondents

This petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant under

4. During the trial the petitioner-complainant was examined as a

5. The petitioner-complainant then challenged the revisional Court’s

6. Relying heavily upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

7. However, in my view the said judgment relied upon by the

FEBRUARY 14, 2013

You might also like