Nirmal @ Nirmal Devi v. State Of Haryana And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-20413 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 13, 2017 Nirmal @ Nirmal Devi

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Neeraj Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the judgment dated 29.03.2017 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide which the revision filed by respondent No.2 against the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by learned JMIC, Rewari summoning respondent No.2, was allowed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

The perusal of the record shows that an application was filed for summoning accused Pramila @ Dholi wife of Leelu. It is argued before learned Magistrate that an application was given to Superintendent of Police, Rewari and Women Cell against in-laws of complainant and due to this reason, accused Narender and Pramila had threatened the complainant on mobile to withdraw the complainant and also threatened to kill father and

CRM No.M-20413 of 2017 -2brother of the complainant.

Learned JMIC, Rewari, summoned Pramila @ Dholi under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 13.05.2015. A revision was filed before the Court of Session and learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, accepted the revision vide impugned judgment dated 29.03.2017. Aggrieved from the above-said impugned judgment, present petition has been filed.

From the record, I find that the judgment passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, is correct, as per evidence and law. No illegality has been committed by learned lower revisional Court. As per the record, Pramila @ Dholi is daughter-in-law of real sister (Shakuntla Devi) of the mother-in-law (Usha Devi) of the complainant. As per the FIR, Narender rang up and abused the complainant but later on, it is attributed to both of them. There is nothing that, after Narender abused the complainant, Pramila @ Dholi took the mobile from him and threatened the complainant too. By giving general averment, her name has been mentioned. When Narender has already given the threatening to the complainant, it looks otherwise unnatural that why and how Pramila @ Dholi gave threatening. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, also discussed that there is no recording of the conversation also.

After discussing all these facts and the evidence on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, has rightly accepted the revision petition. The standard of proof for summoning additional accused is somewhat more than prima facie case. The occurrence took place on 27.07.2011 and the complaint has been filed on 07.09.2012. The Court also discussed that regarding earlier registered FIR, police has submitted the

CRM No.M-20413 of 2017 -3cancellation report and the complainant had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was the base of second FIR lodged after almost 13 months of the alleged incident.

The perusal of the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2017 shows that no illegality has been committed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, while accepting the revision. In no way, it can be held that the passing of impugned judgment amounts to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

July 13, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No