Case title: 

Geeta Devi & Anr v. State of Punjab & Anr

Date of Order: 

5th January 2024

Bench: 

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain

Parties: 

Petitioner(s): Geeta Devi & Anr

Respondent(s): State of Punjab & Anr

SUBJECT:

The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the High Court’ or ‘the Court’) dealt with a case involving a petition challenging an order issued by the Additional Sessions Judge in Fazilka, which allowed the summoning of the petitioners as additional accused in a criminal case. The petitioners were found innocent after the completion of the investigation and the complainant implicated the petitioners. The High Court allowed the petition emphasizing that there was a need for more than prima facie case.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC):

• Section 319
• Section 1730

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 365
• Section 342
• Section 364
• Section 302
• Section 148
• Section 149

OVERVIEW:

• On 3^rd August 2015, Joginder Singh received a call from Ex-Sarpanch Daulat Ram, a resident of Sahilwala, Rajasthan, suggesting that land in that area was cheap.
• Joginder was asked to come after arranging the amount of Rs. 1 Lakh for the same. Joginder informed his family and left with the sum to the specified location.
• When Joginder did not return home, his family inquired about his whereabouts. They received a phone call from Joginder claiming that he was being held captive and the captors were demanding Rs. 5 lakhs for his release.
• The family promised to arrange for the money through various means upon receiving a call from Daulat Ram, stating that the payment had not been received.
• The family then filed an FIR against the Sarpanch under sections 365 and 342 of IPC.
• Meanwhile, Joginder Singh succumbed to the injuries inflicted on him during captivity, and the offences under Sections 364A, 302, 148, 149 of IPC were enhanced.
• During the course of the investigation, Krishan Lal Tanda, Geeta Devi (Daulat Ram’s wife), and Rajinder Kr Mistry (Raju) were found innocent.
• The petitioner is now seeking to quash the FIR No. 156 dated 10.08.2015, where she has been summoned by the prosecution

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners to be named as additional accused?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER:

• The allegations are only against Daulat Ram.
• The allegation against the petitioners is only a bald allegation that Madan Lal, Geeta Devi (petitioner), and Raju are also involved in the offence in question.
• Having been proven innocent in the investigation, the petitioners cannot be summoned as additional accused by the complainant/respondent.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The Court took into consideration the precedents set by Suresh v. State of Maharashtra, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, and Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab.
• The High Court opined that during the phase of framing charges, the evidence must be assessed to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to presume the accused’s involvement in the offence.
• It is the court’s objective to decide if there is adequate basis to proceed with the case, not to conclude that the case is unlikely to result in a conviction.
• The Court held that if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence that satisfies the court that those who have not been arraigned as accused or against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence, the court can take cognizance against them along with other accused.

CONCLUSION:

The High Court allowed the present revision petition, stating that the power under section 319 of the CrPC cannot be exercised unless and until the evidence on record meets the criteria of more than just a prima facie case, simply because the petitioners have been named by the complainant. The order by the Additional Sessions Judge was set aside.