Ali Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Babu Qureshi

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—In the F.I.R. lodged in a Case u/s 302 and 201 I.P.C read with Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. four accused Faheem, Haneef, Guddu and Ali Ahmad were named. The police after investigation filed the charge-sheet against accused Faheem and Haneef. Against the remaining two accused Ali Ahmad and Guddu, no charge-sheet or final report was filed and the investigation remain suspended.

The trial began and P.W. 1 Sri Babu Qureshi complainant was examined. After recording the statement of P.W.1, the trial judge found that there was material against the two accused Ali Ahmad and summoned him u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

It is against this order of summoning dated 25.10.2007 (in ST. No. 795 OF 2005, pending in fast Track Court No. 3, Bareilly) that the applicant has come to this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

I have heard Sri Amir Khan, Advocate for applicant, and Sri R.K. Maurya, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

A strange feature of this case is, as noted above, that the police investigation against two accused including the applicant remained incomplete, and neither a charge-sheet nor a final report was filed. It is in this back-drop that the matter should be visualized!

P.W.1 has asserted in his statement that all the four accused including the present applicant were involved in the Commission of the murder. He has said in his statement that his deceased daughter (who is said to have been murdered) had told him that she had herself heard all the four accused talking among themselves about the plan to kill her. P.W. 1 has also mentioned in his statement that after he had brought his deceased daughter to his house all the four accused came there and the applicant insisted that he should send the daughter to her husband''s house and that he would be responsible for all the consequences.

It was argued by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not related to any of the parties, neither to the family of the husband nor to the family of the wife, and there was no reason for him and no motive whatsoever to involve him in the Commission of murder. He was only an intermediary who got the marriage settled and that was his only crime. All that may be true, but the absence of motive is not sufficient to warrant an inference about the innocence of the applicant. It may on the contrary be said that there must have been some justification for the complainant to implicate the applicant.

However, we have to go by the evidence on record, and see, if there is sufficient justification for the exercise of discretion u/s 319 Cr.P.C.?

The statements of P.W. 1, referred to above, provides prima-facie material against the applicant justifying a trial.

It has also to be noticed that only one witness has hitherto been examined, and only he alone, will have to be recalled after the impalement of the applicant. The inclusion of the applicant in the array of the accused will not, therefore, cause any substantial disruption in the proceedings.

The special feature which further justifies the summoning of the applicant u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is the circumstance that there is no investigative report of the police about him.

In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was no sufficient justification for the judge to summon the applicant u/s 319 Cr.P.C.

It must, however, be observed, that the Trial Court was lax in commencing the trial straightaway without asking the police as to why a report was not submitted about the applicant and the other accused Guddu?

Petition dismissed.