Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalu Singh vs State (2025:Rj-Jd:15994) on 25 March, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:15994]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4150/2019
1. Kalu Singh S/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 30 Years, By
Caste Rajput, R/o Dudwa, Tehsil Sayla, District Jalore
(Raj.).
2. Smt. Chail Kanwar W/o Shri Kalu Singh, Aged About 27
Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Dudwa, Tehsil Sayla, District
Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through P.p.
2. Smt. Sagar Kanwar W/o Praveen Singh, By Caste Rajput,
R/o Dudwa, At Present Bithan, Tehsil Jaswantpura,
District Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None Present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NK Gurjar, GA-cum-AAG with
Mr. Y.S. Charan
Mr. VS Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with
Mr. Ravindra
Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
25/03/2025
REPORTABLE
1. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the private respondent - Shri
Suresh Kumbhat and Shri Sheetal Kumbhat and the learned Public
Prosecutor as well as gone through the order under challenge
passed by the Court of first instance and the Court of Revision and
also gone through the niceties of the matter.
3. Bereft of elaborate details, succinctly stated the facts of the
case are that a prosecution was launched at the instance of
[2025:RJ-JD:15994] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-4150/2019]
respondent No.2 for subjecting her to cruelty and maltreatment
during her matrimony. Though in the FIR, she levelled allegations
of causing injuries and forcibly making her to swallow
contaminated/poisonous substances and the role of the petitioners
were also mentioned, however, after conducting thorough
investigation, due reasons were given by the Agency and only the
husband of the respondent No.2 was charge-sheeted for
committing offence under Sections 498-A, 323 and 325 of IPC. It
is notable that the conclusion of the Investigating Agency was
never made to challenge by the complainant party or by the State
of Rajasthan. It is also noteworthy that no application under
Section 190 of Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of the respondents.
After taking cognizance of the offence, the learned trial Court
proceeded to hear the parties on the question of charge. Vide
order dated 25.11.2017, the learned trial Court framed charges
under Section 498-A, 323 and 325 of IPC. After commencement of
the trial, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the
prosecution and at that juncture, an application came to be moved
on behalf of the respondent No.2 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for
arraigning the petitioners also as an accused party in light of the
evidence brought on record, the learned trial Judge allowed the
application. The another application moved by her under Section
216 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed though no challenge has been made
ever by any of the parties.
4. Aggrieved by the order booking the petitioners by taking
resort to Section 319 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners made a challenge
by moving a criminal revision petition, however, the same has
[2025:RJ-JD:15994] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-4150/2019]
been dismissed and as such both the orders are under assail
before this Court.
5. I have minutely gone through the niceties of the matter, the
statement of the victim recorded during trial, the police report
under Section 173 of Cr.P.C and the statements of neighbours of
the matrimonial home viz. Lakma Ram and Nimba Ram and others
so also gone through the injury report. This Court has noticed
serious incongruence and major contradiction in the statement of
the respondent No.2. When her statement was recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. during the course of the investigation, she
narrated the incident of administering her poison in the following
manner:-
"On 19.02.2017 between 1.00 P.M. - 2.00 P.M., her
husband Praveen Singh forcibly poured a bottle of poison
into her mouth and he also beat her by fist and kicks."
6. When she was examined in the trial, she by making material
improvement, deposed these following lines:-
"On 19.02.2017, she was beaten up by her in-laws and
her husband Praveen Singh gave her a lathi blow. Father-in-
law - Ram Singh, mother-in-law - Chail Kanwar and the
petitioners caught hold of her then told that her husband
also holding her. Her husband made her to swallow poison
and father-in-law, mother-in-law and the petitioners kept
holding her."
7. A glimpse over the two statements suggesting this Court that
sufficient material is not there to book the petitioners as accused
and there is no such material, for which, they should be forced to
face the rigor of trial. Putting any person and compelling him to
attend the Court proceedings certainly infringes his fundamental
[2025:RJ-JD:15994] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-4150/2019]
right. The issuance of process for joining the trial should not be
taken lightly. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Pepsi
Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.
reported in 1998 SC 128 expounded that due care should have
been taken before issuance of process against any person since
calling him to attend the Court proceedings regularly certainly
restrains his fundamental rights which is otherwise guaranteed by
the Constitution of India. The law is no more res integra as held in
the case of Hardeep Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.
reported in 2014 3 SCC 92 that a left over accused can be
impleaded during trial provided sufficient material is brought on
record to array him also as an accused. In some of the cases, the
sufficiency of the material has been taken to say if the allegations
are not rebutted, the same may lead to conviction. In a recent
judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of
Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC
289, a further enunciation of law has been made in this regard. I
am of the view that the opinion of the Investigating Officer was
never made to challenge which is in an unequivocal and
unambiguous term has exonerated the petitioners. No challenge
has been made to the report of the investigation. The learned trial
Court took cognizance of the offence and proceeded in the matter
only against accused-husband, however, no challenge was made
by the respondent for booking the petitioners also by taking resort
to Section 190 read with Section 204 of Cr.P.C. After examining
eight witnesses in the trial, the application under Section 319 of
Cr.P.C. has been moved which is allowed by the learned trial Judge
in a mechanical manner. Simply mentioning name or levelling
[2025:RJ-JD:15994] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-4150/2019]
vague allegations would not be sufficient to book any person
under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. I am of the firm opinion that the
material brought on record must be scrutinized to some extent so
as to make a firm opinion whether sufficient grounds are there or
not to array a new person for joining the trial. Section 319 of
Cr.P.C. provides for impleadment of additional accused so that
they may be tried together with the principal accused. The FIR in
this case was lodged in the year 2017. The trial had progressed to
a great extent. The material witnesses have been examined. At
this juncture, holding the trial, booking a new person and then
ordering de novo trial, in my firm opinion would be nothing but
doing so would be a travesty of justice. I am of the firm opinion
that the learned trial Judge has committed an error of law in
allowing the application filed by the respondent No.2 under
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge was
expected to examine the legality, correctness so also the propriety
of the order passed by the trial Court, but he utterly failed to do
so rather casually concurred his opinion with the learned
Magistrate. The legal aspect has not been considered wisely by
both the Courts below, thus, the instant misc. petition deserves to
be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed and the
order dated 25.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Jalore in Criminal Regular Case No.60/2017 and the order dated
14.06.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in
Criminal Revision Petition No.45/2017 are hereby quashed and set
aside. The petitioners are exonerated from the charges. The
[2025:RJ-JD:15994] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-4150/2019]
learned trial Court to proceed against the principal accused. No
further order is required to pass.
9. Stay application is disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
9-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
