Tejwant Singh vs Jasdeep Singh and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.

Crl. Misc. No. 64517 of 2012

Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for.

Crl. Misc. No. M-33776 of 2012

Tejwant Singh, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C. for setting aside the order dated 12.10.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal vide which the court has not summoned the respondents for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC as well as the order dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Karnal, vide which his revision against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. Tejwant Singh, the petitioner married his daughter Navneet Kaur with Jasdeep, respondent no. 1 on 15.09.2007 according to Sikh rites Navneet Kaur gave birth to a female child on 04.06.2008. Though a lot of money was spent in the marriage, in which a BMW car was given as dowry, the respondents were not happy with the same and kept harassing Navneet Kaur for further dowry. The respondents even sought 1/3rd share of Navneet Kaur in her father''s property and in lieu thereof they sought Rs. 1.5 crores from her. The allegations are also that the respondents had been administering some medicines to Navneet Kaur, which were acting as slow poison with the intention to kill her and on account of the same, the complainant claimed section 307 IPC to be attracted to the case.

It is the Magistrate who did not summon the respondents for this offence and the revision petition preferred by the complainant against that order also failed before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Karnal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was ample evidence on the record to prove that the respondents were administering some medicines to Navneet Kaur with a view to kill her. According to him, Dr. Baldev Raj, a private practitioner at Raj Clinic, Ram Nagar, Karnal appeared as CW-2 and Dr. Sanjeev Grover, Sr. Medical Officer, a member of the Board of three doctors, examined as CW-3 have categorically stated that the medicines given to Navneet Kaur were dangerous to life. According to him, this evidence was sufficient to show a prima-facie case against the respondents for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. Citing case law in support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of a case titled as Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana and ors. 2011(2) RCR (Cri), 372. The facts in the reported case were entirely different where on account of the property dispute between the accused and the victim, the accused and his four companions entered the shop of the victim and assaulted him with a wooden handle and caused injuries on his head. He has also cited a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. 2004(1) RCR (Cri) 839. It is laid down in this case that bodily injury capable of causing death is not necessary to be shown in all cases to prove section 307 IPC and that the court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result was done with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances mentioned under section. The last decision cited before me is in Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another 2012 (3) RCR (Cri) 595. The law laid down in this case is altogether different. The ratio of this decision is that the Magistrate while passing the order issuing process u/s 204 Cr. P.C. need not pass a speaking order.

The medicines are said to have been given in the first spell when Navneet Kaur was pregnant and she was carrying a female foetus in her womb. It is claimed that they wanted the foetus to be aborted. Neither the foetus aborted nor Navneet Kaur died due to the alleged intake of medicines. The medicines were again given after Navneet Kaur had given birth to a female child. It is clearly noticed by learned Magistrate that the medicines were being given on the prescription of Dr. Rana Patir, Neurologist of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. It is not a case where any medicine was being given without prescription from a doctor. The expertise of Dr. Rana Patir, Neurologist of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi cannot be questioned.

Dr. Baldev Raj, who is speaking about Larpose 2 mg., a tablet which was taken by Navneet Kaur, says that this medicine if taken in excess could cause addiction and could also be dangerous to life. Dr. Sanjeev Grover, Sr. Medical Officer, CW-3 talks about another medicine by name Lyrica the dose of which is also said to be free from any problem upto some strength which if given in excess thereof could be dangerous to life.

If the medicines were given with the intention to kill Navneet Kaur, the medicines should at least have adverse effect on the foetus. It is a case where Navneet Kaur gave birth to a healthy child and there was no effect on the child of those medicines. The evidence on the record is only to the effect that excess of these medicines could be dangerous to life. In allopathy every medicines has effect and side effect. Even an innocuous tablet can be dangerous to life if taken in excess. There is no allegation that the medicines were being given in excess of the prescribed dosage by the respondents.

For all these reasons, I do not find any illegality committed by learned Magistrate in refusing to summon respondents no. 1 to 5 for an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. Consequently, I find no fault with the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Tract Court), Karnal, who conferred the order of learned Magistrate. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.