New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held
that a person can be prosecuted by courts even if the police
give him or her a clean chit by claiming there is no evidence
against the accused.
Interpreting section 319 of the CrPC, a bench of
Justices R V Raveendran and G S Singhvi said the proviso
empowers the court to summon any person for facing the trial
even though the police may claim that there is no evidence to
nail the accused.
"Section 319 CrPC applies to all the courts, including
the Sessions Court. It empowers the court to add any person,
not being the accused before it, but against whom there
appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his
involvement in the offence, as an accused and direct him to be
tried along with other accused.
"If such a person is not attending the Court, he can
be arrested or summoned. If he is attending the Court,
although not under arrest or upon a summons, he can be
detained by such Court for the purpose of inquiry into, or
trial of the offence which he appears to have committed," the
bench said in a judgement.
The apex court passed the judgement while dismissing the
appeal by a woman summoned in a dowry case by a Rajasthan
court even though the police claimed there was no evidence
against her as the alleged victim Anita lived in Sriganganagar
district whereas the accused sister-in-law Suman lived in
Bikaner district.
Anita had lodged cases of harassment against her
husband Pramod Kumar, mother-in-law Rukmani Devi and
father-in-law Ram Kumar besides sister-in-las Suman under IPC
sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) 498A(harassment), 354
(outraging modesty) 377 (unnatrual offences) and 323 (causing
hurt).
The Jawaharnagar police in Sriganganagar district had
filed the chargesheet on January 4, 2003, against the husband
and parents-in-law but not against Suman even though Anita
named her in the FIR and the statements recorded by the
police.
According to the police, Suman lived in Bikaner
whereas the victim and the other in-laws lived in Bikaner and
there was no evidence to indicate that she had also harassed
the victim.
Anita moved the judicial magistrate of Ganganagar who
issued summons to Suman. The latter questioned the issuance of
summons before the Sessions Court on the ground that since she
had been given a clean chit by the police, the court cannot
summon her to stand trial.
The Sessions Court dismissed her plea and the
Rajasthan High Court concurred with the order, after which she
appealed in the apex court.
Dismissing Suman`s appeal, the apex court, citing its
earlier judgements, said "we hold that a person who is named
in the first information report or complaint with the
allegation that he/she has committed any particular crime or
offence but against whom the police does not launch
prosecution or files charge-sheet or drops the case, can be
proceeded against under Section 319 Cr.P.C. if from the
evidence collected/produced in the course of any inquiry into
or trial of an offence, the court is prima facie satisfied
that such person has committed any offence for which he can be
tried with other accused."
Anita had, in her complaint, alleged that besides
harassing her for dowry, the accused took her to a lady doctor
and got implanted a device to prevent her giving birth to
any child.
She also alleged though Suman resided in Bikaner she
used to instigate on phone her parents and brother to harass
her.
Bureau Report
