Gurmit Singh vs State of Punjab

K.S. Garewal, J.—Gurmit Singh has filed this criminal revision petition to challenge the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roop Nagar dated January 24, 2000 whereby an application filed by the State u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Ratti Ram, Gurmit Singh (Petitioner herein) and Balbir Kaur wife of Ratti Ram was allowed and these three persons were summoned to stand trial along with Paramjit Singh and others.

According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Paramjit Singh is the main accused and it was in respect of his wife''s dowry death that a case had been registered u/s 304-B I.P.C vide F.I.R. 57 dated May 18, 1997 at Police Station Kharar.

After the investigation was concluded and final report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed, Ratti Ram, Gurmit Singh and Balbir Kaur had been kept in column No. 2. Ratti Ram, Gurmit Singh and Balbir Kaur had been summoned as accused to stand trial vide orders dated December 23, 1997 and January 19, 1998. After they were summoned, charges were framed and prosecution recorded as many as ten witnesses. Statements of the accused u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded. When the case was at the stage of final arguments, the defence counsel produced an order of this Court dated February 25, 1999 passed in Cr. Misc. 1584-M of 1999 whereby the previous orders of summoning the three accused dated December 23, 1997 and January 19, 1998 had been set aside but it was left open to the trial Judge to invoke the provisions of Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure after recording the statements of the material witnesses of the prosecution.

Thereafter, Shakuntla Rani (P.W.-1) was examined, she named Dayal Singh, Paramjit Singh, Ratti Ram, Gurmit Singh and Balbir Singh as accused in her cross-examination. She stated that Gurmit Singh was son of Rattan Singh while Balbir Kaur was his sister and wife of Ratti Ram.

Vide impugned order dated January 24, 2000 the Petitioner was again summoned to stand trial.

The precise argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Gurmit Singh cannot be tried u/s 304 I.P.C. because is not "a relative of her husband" meaning thereby that he is not a relative of Paramjit Singh. Reference has been made to the exact words used in Section 304-B I.P.C. in support of this contention.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the provisions of Section 198-A Code of Criminal Procedure which relates to prosecution of offence u/s 498-A I.P.C. and has tried to draw a corollary with the present case. However, before referring to this contention, it deserves to be noticed that Gurmit Singh is the brother of Balbir Kaur who is Paramjit Singh''s aunt (chachi).

Section 198-A Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code except upon a police report of facts which constitute such offence or upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence or by her father, mother, brother or sister or by her father''s or mother''s brother or sister or with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption.

The intention of the legislature is that a case u/s 498-A I.P.C. can only be registered if the complaint is made by a person aggrieved of the offence or by certain specific relatives. In the category of relatives are parents and siblings, uncles and aunts (taya/chacha/bhua or mama/massi). However, with the leave of the Court any other person related to the aggrieved person by marriage or adoption can institute the complaint.

In the present case, Gurmit Singh would not fall in any of the above categories. Therefore, would he fall in any of the categories of relatives mentioned in Section 304-B I.P.C. is the moot point to be considered. Definition of relatives given in Section 198-A Code of Criminal Procedure has not been adopted in Section 304-B I.P.C. although the phraseology is "any relative of her husband". Similar phraseology has also been used in Section 113-A but not in Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

"Relative of the husband" must necessarily be a class of relative and not a relative''s relative. Gurmit Singh is not a relative of Paramjit Singh but his aunt''s (chachi''s) brother. As a matter of fact even the aunt would not come in the list of relatives given in Section 198-A Code of Criminal Procedure but may be covered by being related through marriage which is an accepted category, of course, by the leave of the Court.

Even the dictionary meaning of a relative is one who is related by blood or marriage. Gurmit Singh is certainly not related to Paramjit Singh either by blood or by marriage. Gurmit Singh would not fall in the category of relative of the husband. Therefore, Gurmit Singh must be excluded from the array of the accused. It is not necessary to try him u/s 304-B I.P.C. for the dowry death of Paramjit Singh''s wife.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated January 24, 2000 in respect of Gurmit Singh is hereby set aside.

Petition allowed.