Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lalita Rani @ Lalita Dhamija And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Another on 13 November, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148810
CRR-2128-2022 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR-2128-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.11.2024
Lalita Rani @ Lalita Dhamija and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Aman Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. P.K. Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.2.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners
against the order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Sessions
Judge, Fatehabad vide which the petitioners have been summoned as
additional accused in a criminal case having FIR No.166 dated 18.07.2020,
under Sections 323, 341, 328, 307, 506, 447, 120-B read with Section 34
IPC, Police Station Sadar Ratia, District Fatehabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent
No.2 Yudhishter recorded his statement with the police to the effect that
their family was having 50 acres of land out of which 10 acres was
cultivated by his brother Ghanshyam while he himself was also cultivating
another 10 acres of land which was given to him by his mother Lilawati.
That on 10.07.2020, at about 10 AM, he along with his wife Shobha went to
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148810
CRR-2128-2022 [2]
the fields and in the evening, their son Rohit also reached there at about 5
PM. In the meantime, Hardik son of Ghanshyam, Harshit son of Sanjay and
Lovish friend of Hardik also came there. Hardik started damaging the crop
which was growing in the fields. Shobha raised objection on which Hardik
altercated with her. Then Hardik made telephone call to police post Nagpur.
On this, Shobha and Rohit went to the said police post. Hardik again started
damaging the crop to which complainant raised objection. Hardik Started
fighting with complainant and threatened to kill him and then Hardik
brought one glass bottle and after throwing the complainant on ground,
Lovish caught both the legs of complainant while Harshit caught him from
both his hands and Hardik forcibly poured some poisonous substance which
was there in the glass bottle, in his mouth. In the meantime, Shobha and
Rohit also reached there who handled the complainant and took him to the
Civil Hospital, Fatehabad from where he was referred to MAMC, Agroha.
Ghanshyam, his sister Lalita and Rakesh Kumar husband of Lalita also used
to give threats to the complainant, to vacate the land in question. In this
manner, FIR was registered against Hardik, Harshit, Lovish, Ghanshyam,
Lalita, Rakesh Kumar and Pushkar son of Ghanshyam. During
investigation, both the petitioners namely Lalita and Rakesh Kumar were
found innocent and as such were not challaned by the police. During trial
against the other accused persons, examination in chief of complainant was
recorded and thereafter, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon
the petitioners and Lovish Kumar as additional accused was filed by the
prosecution. The same was allowed by the trial Court vide its order dated
03.09.2022 and both the petitioners and Lovish Kumar were summoned as
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148810
CRR-2128-2022 [3]
additional accused.
3. Being aggrieved, petitioners Lalita and Rakesh Kumar have
filed by the present petition.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that it could be easily
made out that at the time of alleged occurrence, both the petitioners were
not present at the spot. The only allegations against the petitioners are that
they were extending threats to cause harm to the complainant and asked him
to vacate the land in question. That no specific date, month and year of any
such incident when the alleged threats were extended, are given in the FIR
or in the supplementary statement of the complainant. It is further submitted
that there was no ground for the trial Court to summon the petitioners as
additional accused on the basis of vague and general allegations. In support
of his contentions, counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab
and others 2014 (3) SCC 92.
5. The present petition is resisted by the State counsel and counsel
for respondent No.2. Both the counsels supported the impugned order and
further submitted that petitioners and Lovish were rightly summoned by the
trial Court to face trial along with other accused persons. It is further
submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of
merits.
6. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
7. The constitution Bench of Honble Supreme Court in Hardeep
Singh's case (supra) observed that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148810
CRR-2128-2022 [4]
ought be exercised sparingly and would require much stronger evidence
then near probability of the accused person's complicity. The test elucidated
by the Constitution Bench is as follows:-
"The test 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."
8. Now adverting to the facts of the present case, it is apparent
that both the petitioners were not present at the time of occurrence which
took place on 10.07.2020. The only allegations leveled against the present
petitioners are that they were extending threats to the complainant to vacate
the land in question or otherwise to face dire consequences. There is
nothing specific as to on which date, month and year, such threats were
given by the petitioners to the complainant. Except for aforesaid alleged
threats being extended by the petitioners, there are no other allegations
against them. If the evidence already available on record is considered on
touchstone of law laid down in Hardeep Singh's case (supra), it cannot be
said that the prosecution is able to establish more than prima facie case
against the petitioners as the material available on the record was not
sufficient for summoning the petitioners as additional accused persons
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable
being not passed in consonance with the settled position of law as laid down
in Hardeep Singh's case (supra).
9. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is allowed and
the impugned order dated 03.09.2022 is set aside qua both the petitioners
only. The observations made herein above are meant only for the disposal of
the present petition.
13.11.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
