[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajni Soni And Ors vs State And Anr (2026:Rj-Jd:7494) on 5 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:7494]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 605/2017
1. Rajni Soni, Wife Of Shri Rajesh Soni
2. Rajesh Soni, Son Of Shri Bhagirath Soni
3. Mohini Devi, Wife Of Shri Bhagirath Soni
4. Bhagirath Soni, Son Of Shri, All Residents Of Himmatsar,
Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan
2. Bhagwan Ram, S/o Shri Purkha Ram, Resident Of
Himmatsar, Police Station Nokha District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur
Ms. Ruchita Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devendra Deelu for
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi
Mr. Surendra Bishnoi,AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable-
05/02/2026
1. By way of filing the instant revision petition, the petitioners
have assailed the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by learned
District Judge Cadre, learned Additional Sessions Judge
(Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Sessions Case No.
51/2014 (State vs. Deepak Soni), whereby the learned trial
Court has partly allowed the application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant and has proceeded to take
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:13:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7494] (2 of 10) [CRLR-605/2017]
cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under
Section 498-A IPC. The impugned order is assailed as being
illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law, having
been passed without appreciating the settled legal principles
governing the exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
and in the absence of any strong, cogent and convincing
evidence warranting the summoning of the petitioners as
additional accused.
Facts of the Case
2. That the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are
that on 02.07.2014, the complainant Bhagwan Ram lodged a
written report alleging that his daughter Santosh, who had
been married to Deepak for about ten years and was blessed
with three daughters, was residing in her matrimonial home
in a joint family with her husband, father-in-law Bhagirath,
mother-in-law, brother-in-law Rajesh and his wife Rajni. It
was alleged that Deepak and his father were habitual
gamblers and had incurred financial losses, due to which, for
the preceding 2-3 months, Santosh was allegedly subjected
to pressure and harassment by her husband and in-laws for
bringing a sum of ₹5 lakhs from her parental home. It was
further stated that despite assurances given by the
complainant to make efforts to meet the demand, the
pressure allegedly continued. On the morning of 02.07.2014,
information was received through a relative that Santosh had
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:13:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7494] (3 of 10) [CRLR-605/2017]
been found hanging, whereafter the complainant reached the
hospital and saw her dead body in the mortuary, alleging
that she had been beaten, murdered and subsequently
hanged to give the incident the colour of suicide.
3. On the basis of the said report, a case was registered under
Sections 302, 498A and 143 IPC and investigation
commenced. Upon completion of investigation, including
multiple rounds thereof, the police filed a charge-sheet only
against Deepak, finding no material against the remaining
family members. The case was committed for trial to the
Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women
Atrocities Cases), Bikaner, where charges were framed
against Deepak and trial proceeded. During the course of
trial, after recording statements of the complainant and
other witnesses, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
was moved seeking summoning of the remaining family
members for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 302 and
201 IPC. The said application was opposed by the proposed
accused. However, vide order dated 13.04.2017, the learned
trial court partly allowed the application and took cognizance
against the present petitioners only for the offence under
Section 498A IPC, which order is assailed in the present
revision petition.
4. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:13:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7494] (4 of 10) [CRLR-605/2017]
Observations and Reasons
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at
considerable length and has carefully perused the entire
material available on record, including the First Information
Report, statements recorded during investigation under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., the charge-sheet submitted after
investigation, the evidence recorded by the learned trial
Court post framing of charges, and the impugned order
passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The controversy at hand
lies within a narrow compass, yet the legal principles
governing it are of profound importance.
6. The jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not a routine
procedural power; it is an extraordinary enabling provision,
conferring upon the Court a discretionary authority to
summon a person not arrayed as an accused if it appears
from the evidence that such person has committed any
offence for which he could be tried together with the
accused. The amplitude of this power is wide, yet its exercise
is circumscribed by judicially evolved safeguards, for the law
does not permit the summoning of a citizen to face a
criminal trial on tenuous or speculative grounds. Criminal
law, being coercive in nature, demands strict adherence to
evidentiary thresholds and procedural fairness.
7. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2014 SUPREME
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:13:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7494] (5 of 10) [CRLR-605/2017]
COURT 1400 has exhaustively delineated the contours of
Section 319 Cr.P.C. It has been held therein that the power is
discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly
and only in those cases where the evidence recorded during
trial discloses more than a mere prima facie case. The
degree of satisfaction required at this stage is higher than
that necessary for taking cognizance at the threshold, at the
time of submission of the charge-sheet or upon completion
of inquiry in a complaint case, though it falls short of that
required for conviction. The Court must be satisfied that
there exists strong and cogent evidence against the person
sought to be summoned, such that, if unrebutted, it may
reasonably lead to conviction. The Constitution Bench
cautioned that the Court must refrain from acting on the
basis of conjectures, vague allegations or the mere ipse dixit
of a witness without substantive corroboration. The principle
that emerges is that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is
not to be invoked as a matter of course, nor to compensate
for investigative deficiencies, but only where compelling
circumstances warrant the addition of a new accused.
8. The said principles have been reiterated and refined in
Sukhbeer Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2023) 1
SCC 289 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised
that while the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is meant to
ensure that real offenders do not escape trial, it must not be
exercised in a manner that undermines the safeguards of
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:13:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7494] (6 of 10) [CRLR-605/2017]
criminal jurisprudence. The Court underscored that the test
is not whether some evidence exists, but whether the
evidence is of such quality and weight that it indicates the
probable involvement of the proposed accused in the
commission of the offence. The summoning order must
reflect due application of mind and conscious satisfaction
that the evidence meets the elevated threshold prescribed by
law.
9. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the marriage between the
deceased Santosh and accused Deepak had been solemnised
nearly ten years prior to the unfortunate incident. Out of the
wedlock, three daughters were born. The deceased resided
in a joint family household comprising her husband, father-
in-law Bhagirath, mother-in-law Mohini, brother-in-law(Jeth)
Rajesh and sister-in-law (Jethani) Rajni. The allegations in
the FIR and subsequent statements consistently indicate that
the husband Deepak and father-in-law Bhagirath were
allegedly facing financial constraints owing to gambling
losses and that they had demanded a sum of ₹5 lakhs from
the parental family of the deceased. The gravamen of the
accusation, as discernible from the earliest version, centres
upon the husband and father-in-law.
10.A careful examination of the statements of the complainant
Bhagwan Ram and other witnesses reveals that while there
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:13:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7494] (7 of 10) [CRLR-605/2017]
are allegations of cruelty and harassment in connection with
the alleged monetary demand, the specific acts attributed
with clarity and consistency are confined substantially to
Deepak and Bhagirath. The assertions against Rajesh (jeth),
Rajni (jethani) and Mohini (Saas) are couched in general
expressions that "all in-laws used to harass" the deceased.
However, no specific overt act, date, instance, conversation
or independent conduct is delineated with respect to these
three individuals. The law is well settled that in offences
under Section 498-A IPC, omnibus and sweeping allegations
against every relative of the husband, without precise
attribution of role, do not satisfy the threshold required for
criminal prosecution.
11.It is also not without significance that during investigation,
carried out in more than one round, the investigating
agency, after evaluating the available material, chose to file
charge-sheet only against Deepak and found no material
sufficient to prosecute the remaining family members. While
it is true that the opinion of the investigating agency does
not bind the Court, and that the Court may independently
exercise powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., yet the
investigative conclusion remains a relevant circumstance in
assessing whether the evidence recorded during trial truly
crosses the higher evidentiary threshold contemplated by the
Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh (supra). The Court
must be cautious not to convert the extraordinary power
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:13:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7494] (8 of 10) [CRLR-605/2017]
under Section 319 into an appellate review of investigative
discretion unless compelling evidence surfaces during trial.
12.The matrimonial life of the deceased having extended over a
decade, and there being no prior complaint or documented
grievance during such prolonged cohabitation, constitutes a
relevant factual circumstance. While absence of prior
complaint is not conclusive proof of absence of cruelty, it is
nonetheless a factor that weighs in judicial evaluation,
particularly when the allegations against certain relatives
lack specificity. Criminal liability cannot be inferred on the
basis of mere presence in the matrimonial home. The maxim
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea reminds us that
criminality attaches to intentional conduct, not to passive
familial association.
13.Upon a cumulative and holistic appreciation of the entire
evidence recorded thus far, this Court finds that the material
against Rajesh (Jeth) , Rajni (Jethani) and Mohini (Saas)
does not rise above the level of generalised accusation bereft
of substance. The evidence, even if taken at its face value,
does not disclose strong and cogent material sufficient
enough to array them as an additional accused to be tried
together with accused Deepak. The summoning of these
petitioners, therefore, does not withstand judicial scrutiny
under the rigorous standard laid down in Hardeep Singh
(supra) and reaffirmed in Sukhbeer Singh Khaira (supra).
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:13:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7494] (9 of 10) [CRLR-605/2017]
The impugned order, to that extent, suffers from legal
infirmity and warrants interference in revisional jurisdiction.
14.Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order dated 13.04.2017 is set aside insofar as it
relates to petitioner Nos. Rajesh, Rajni and Mohini. They
stand discharged from the proceedings arising out of the
impugned summoning order under Section 498-A IPC.
Insofar as petitioner Bhagirath is concerned, learned counsel
for the petitioners has not pressed the revision petition on
his behalf, so instant petititon stands dismissed to his extent
only.
15.It is pertinent to note that the learned trial Court has taken
cognizance against Bhagirath for the offence under Section
498-A IPC only and not for the offence under Section 302
IPC. The maximum punishment prescribed under Section
498-A IPC is three years. Therefore, the mandate of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
(2014) 8 SCC 273, as well as the safeguards embodied in
Sections 41 and 41-A Cr.P.C.( corresponding to section 35
BNSS), squarely apply.
16.It is further observed that during investigation, an
independent agency had not found sufficient material to
prosecute Bhagirath. In view of the limited nature of the
offence for which cognizance has been taken, and
considering the statutory safeguards applicable, the
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:13:33 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7494] (10 of 10) [CRLR-605/2017]
petitioner Bhagirath is directed to appear before the learned
trial Court on or before 30th March. Upon his appearance
and filing of an application for regular bail, the learned trial
Court shall consider and decide the same on the same day,
and he shall be released on bail upon furnishing appropriate
bail bonds, subject to usual conditions.
17.Before parting, this Court also notes with concern that the
record of the case appears to have been summoned without
there being any specific judicial order directing the same.
Procedural discipline is the backbone of criminal adjudication,
and records cannot be requisitioned except in accordance
with lawful orders. The record be transmitted back forthwith.
The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the
proceedings and endeavour to conclude the trial at the
earliest, in accordance with law.
(FARJAND ALI),J
195-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 05:13:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
