Purshottam Goyal vs State Of Haryana And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 7512 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Purshottam Goyal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 April, 2024

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049674
                                                                                    1
CRR-586-2020 (O&M)                                                   2024:PHHC:049674

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRR No.586 of 2020 (O&M)

                                        Date of Reserve: 13.03.2024
                                        Date of Decision: 09.04.2024

PURUSHOTAM GOYAL             ......Petitioner(s)
        Vs
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:    Mr. Lalit K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana

            Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
                       ****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

[1]. By way of present revision, petitioner prays for setting aside of an

order dated 14.01.2020 passed by Additional Session Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter

referred to as "Trial Court") in case no 269 of 2019 arising out of FIR no. 1 dated

02.01.2019 under Sections 306 and 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter

referred to as "IPC")whereby an application filed by the petitioner invoking

Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

"Cr.P.C") for summoning respondent nos. 2 to 4 was dismissed.

[2]. Brief facts of the case are that son of the petitioner, Dheeraj Goyal,

got married to daughter of Respondent nos. 2 and 3 ,namely, Rashmi Goyal on

13.07.2016 and soon thereafter marital dispute started between them. Rashmi

Goyal filed a complaint under Section 498-A of IPC against Dheeraj Goyal on

25.10.2018 which led him to commit suicide on 22.12.2018. An FIR No.01 dated

02.01.2019 was lodged at Police Station GRP Faridabad, District Faridabad at the

behest of petitioner alleging that his son committed suicide due to abetment of

1 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049674

CRR-586-2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049674

respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 and Rashmi Goyal while relying upon suicide notes,

WhatsApp message and e-mail written by Dheeraj Goyal. The police, upon

investigating the matter submitted a final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C dated

24.07.2019 wherein respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 were exonerated. During trial, the

petitioner appeared as PW-1 and deposed on the line of complaint and made

Respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 alongwith Rashmi Goyal liable for the suicide

committed by his son. Thereafter, on 04.01.2020 petitioner filed an application

under Section 319 Cr.P.C before the Trial Court for summoning respondent nos. 2,

3 and 4 as additional accused to face trial and the Trial Court after considering the

same dismissed it vide order dated 14.01.2020 and, thus, the present revision.

[3]. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Trial Court

committed a grave error while dismissing the application filed under Section 319

Cr.P.C as respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 were the main instigators which led to the

commitment of suicide by son of the petitioner. He further submits that the police

did not collect relevant material qua the complicity of Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4

and therefore challan was not prepared against them and in this regard ld. Counsel

placed reliance upon e-mail, suicide notes and WhatsApp message dated

05.10.2018, wherein the deceased Dheeraj Goyal specifically mentioned reasons

and persons responsible which forced him to take the extreme step of committing

suicide. He also placed reliance upon the testimony of petitioner which was

recorded on 04.01.2020 while appearing as PW-1 before the Trial Court wherein

he specifically made attributions to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. He further argued

that ld. Trial Court arrived at incorrect conclusion while dismissing the application

under Section 319 Cr.P.C by not taking into consideration the deposition made by

2 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049674

CRR-586-2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049674

the petitioner while appearing as Pw-1 and the fact that at summoning stage no

fresh evidence was needed.

[4]. On the other hand learned State Counsel and the learned counsel

representing respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 opposed the prayer made on behalf of the

petitioner and submitted that the Trial Court rightfully based its findings on the

final report submitted by the Police wherein respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 were

exonerated on being found innocent. It was submitted that mere allegations

levelled by the petitioner in his testimony while appearing as PW-1 on 04.01.2020,

could not be treated to be conclusive proof of the complicity of respondent nos. 2,

3 and 4 in the alleged offence under Section 306 of IPC and thus the order passed

by the Trial Court warrants no interference.

[5]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made by learned

Counsel for the petitioner.

[6]. Upon perusing the record it is evident that son of the petitioner,

namely Dheeraj Goyal and the daughter of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Rashmi

Goyal, had marital discord, due to which Dheeraj left his home on 05.10.2018,

leaving behind suicide note and e-mail naming his wife, Rashmi Goyal, as well as

respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 for taking ghastly step of committing suicide and later

was found dead near railway tracks of Faridabad on 22.12.2018. Ld. Trial Court in

the impugned order dated 14.01.2020 while dismissing the application filed under

Section 319 Cr.P.C came to the conclusion that respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 were

found innocent in the final report dated 02.01.2019 filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C,

wherein after thorough investigation and analysis of call data records between

deceased as well as respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, they were not proposed to be

3 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049674

CRR-586-2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049674

summoned as accused and further the fact that petitioner's statement as PW-1 was

nothing more than re-iteration of his complaint Ex.PA which led to the registration

of FIR and said allegations were duly investigated by the Police and thus such

averments made in the statement of petitioner as PW-1 without any fresh evidence

could not be said to be enough to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section

319 Cr.P.C. A perusal of aforesaid final report also shows that even though there

were direct allegations levelled by the petitioner in his complaint against the

private respondents, but upon verification of their call records there were no phone

calls exchanged between the deceased and respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 and, thus

there was no prima facie or apparent material to establish any abetment,

facilitation, intention or involvement of private respondents to aid or instigate the

commission of offence, so to aid the deceased to commit suicide. Relevant excerpt

thereof the final report is reproduced hereunder: -

"During investigation call details of Smt Rashmi Goyal w/o deceased of Mobile No. 8700768280 and 8750124379, Yogender Goyal's Mobile No. 9891594350 and Mobile of Smt. Madhu Goyal 84471915 and Mobile No. 9810748833 of Shri Ravinder Goyal Uncle/father in law of the deceased, mobile No. 8800335632 of Sh. Purshottam Dass Goyal and Mobile No. 8800335632 of deceased Dheeraj Goyal were obtained and after due analysis it was found that there were no call exchanges for about two months earlier between accused Shri Yogender Goyal, Smt.Madhu Goyal and Smt. Ravinder Goyal with Mobile number of the deceased or the complainant. It was further found that deceased Dheeraj Goyal had made a phone call to accused Rashmi Goyal on the day of the incident. The accused had not made any call. During investigation accused Smt. Rashmi Goyal was granted interim bail and as per the orders of the Hon'bleCourt she was joined in the investigation and was formally arrested in the case. During investigation other accused Yogender Goyal (father in law), Smt. Madhu Goyal (mother in law) and Sh. Ravinder Goyal (Uncle/father in law) were joined in the investigation. The facts of the case were verified by SHO and were also got verified by from DSP Sir, Railway Faridabad. The

4 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049674

CRR-586-2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049674

other accused were found innocent and accordingly Section 34 IPC was deleted."

[7]. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hardeep Singh Vs State of

Punjab, 2014(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 623, summed up the conclusions and scope

arising out of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Relevant conclusions from para No.110, is as

under:-

"110. We accordingly sum up our conclusions as follows :

Question Nos. 1 & III

Q.1 What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised?

AND

Q.III Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?

A. In Dharam Pal's case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Judge need not wait till `evidence' under Section 319 Cr.P.C. becomes available for summoning an additional accused. ? Section 319 Cr.P.C., significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry.

Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 Cr.P.C.; and under Section 398 Cr.P.C. are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Cr.P.C. Materials coming before the Court in course of such enquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet. In view of the above position the word `evidence' in Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial.

                                              Question No. II




                                     5 of 8

                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049674

CRR-586-2020 (O&M)                                                  2024:PHHC:049674

Q.II Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. could only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?

A. Considering the fact that under Section 319 Cr.P.C. a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) Cr.P.C. the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross- examination.

Question No. IV

Q.IV What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted?

A. Though under Section 319(4)(b) Cr.P.C. the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial - therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different.

Question No. V

Q.V Does the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or who have been discharged?

A. A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, in so far as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of

6 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049674

CRR-586-2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049674

Sections 300 and 398 Cr.P.C. has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh."

[8]. As per the point of law exposit hereinabove, the degree of satisfaction

required under Section 319 Cr.P.C is much higher than the prima facie satisfaction

at the time of summoning an additional accused. The test to be applied is one

which is more than prima facie case as required at the time of framing of charge

and just short of final conclusion. The scope of extent of powers of Court to

summon any person as an accused during course of trial in exercise of powers

under Section 319 Cr.P.C has been set at rest by the aforesaid Hardeep Singh's

case (supra). The legal position has further been summarized in para Nos.98 and 99

of the aforesaid judgment. For ready reference para Nos.98 and 99 of the said

judgment are reproduced hereunder:-

"98. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extra- ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.

99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Section 319 Cr.P.C. the purpose of providing if `it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence' is clear from the words "for which such person could be tried together with the accused." The words used are not `for which such person could be convicted'. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused."

7 of 8

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049674

CRR-586-2020 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:049674

[9]. Further, a coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Laxmi vs State of

Haryana and another, 2018(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 987, held also that for

summoning a person under 319 Cr.P.C, compelling fresh evidence must be there

apart from the allegation levelled in the complaint. Relevant paragraphs thereof are

reproduced as under:-

"12. No doubt, Section 319 Cr.PC provides that where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused, has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

13. However, at the same time, no person on an application under Section 319 Cr.PC can be summoned as an additional accused merely on the basis of statement of the complainant recorded in the Court unless there is material to summon. In order to summon an accused, some "fresh evidence" must have come on record so as to impel the Court to summon such person as an additional accused."

[10]. Applying the law enunciated hereinabove upon the facts and

circumstances of the case in hand, the order dated 14.01.2020 passed by the Trial

Court in case no 269 of 2019 arising out of FIR No.01 dated 02.01.2019 under

Sections 306 and 34 of IPC whereby an application filed by the petitioner under

Section 319 of Cr.P.C for summoning of respondent no. 2 to 4 was dismissed

warrants no interference and thus present revision petition is dismissed.

[11]. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed

of.

                                               (HARKESH MANUJA)
April 09, 2024                                     JUDGE
Atik
             Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
             Whether reportable                Yes/No




                                      8 of 8