Pandit Pappu Dubey v. State

1. By the present petition the Petitioner seeks setting aside of summoning order dated 20th July, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in case FIR No. 311/2007.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned order summoning the Petitioner is against the provisions of law as the learned Additional Sessions Judge was very much prejudiced against the Petitioner which is apparent from his order dated 1i 11 March, 2011 whereby at the stage of framing of charge observations were made against the Petitioner. It Crl.M.C.3333/2011 1 -~ '~~.,,; 2011:DHC:10349 is stated that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had already applied his judicial mind while framing charges and thus the act of taking cognizance subsequently on 20th July, 2011 is not tenable in the eyes of law. The order itself shows that the learned Judge has acted arbitrarily. Learned Judge has failed to appreciate that the essential ingredients ofthe offence for which the Petitioner has been summoned were not made out against the Petitioner in the FIR. No detailed reasoning has been given by the learned Judge to prove that the Petitioner could be made liable for the offence of which he is charged. It is contended that the Petitioner was a mere witness of the marnage and his presence does not amount to his having committed the alleged offence. Thus the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in law as well as on facts while passing the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside.

3. Per contra learned APP for the State contends that the Petitioner herein was the priest of the temple where the complainant was forced to get married to the main accused after extending threats. In the complaint the Complainant has specifically stated that the other accused threatened the complainant not to divulge the facts of the incident to anyone otherwise her whole family would be eliminated. The role of the Petitioner herein is clear Cri.M.C. 3333/2011 /~ ' '~~ '•'• which is sufficient to prove a prima facie case against the Petitioner. The present petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 3

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Briefly, the fact of the case are that the Complainant Vidhya lodged a complaint under Section 366/362/363/365/368/406/420/464/468/471/500- 506/34 IPC against the Petitioner and four other accused persons. The Complainant in the complaint alleged that one Raju who used to live in the neighbourhood with his family became friendly with the family of the complainant and in the year 2004 his mother Urmila proposed marriage of Raju with the Complainant and the same was declined by her mother as both of them were of different caste. Thereafter, Urmila lured the mother of the Complainant that she could arrange a job for the Complainant in some company. Raju asked for her photographs and original documents of her educational qualifications, which were given by the Complainant. On 15th December, 2004, the Complainant was told to be prepared for the interview and accused Raju took her to the temple on the pretext of offering prayer first. Unnila along with Maika, Anil Kumar were already present in the temple. The Petitioner herein performed some rituals and garlanded the Complainant and Raju. It is alleged that all the people standing there '~i threatened her to do as they said otherwise she would be killed. Accused Raju threatened to kill her by brandishing knife towards her. It is also stated that the Petitioner extended threats to her and perfonned the marriage of the Complainant with accused Raju. Thereafter, Raju dropped the Complainant near her house on the same day. However out of fear she did not tell the incident to her family members. Thereafter, in the month of February, 2005 the Complainant approached the police to take action against the accused persons but the accused Raju showed them a Court notice claiming the Complainant as his wife. Complainant also filed various representations to the concerned DCP, Joint CP and CP. The Complainant on 21st April, 2005 received summons from C.A.W. Cell, Nanakpura. The complainant visited the office of C.A.W. and prayed to take action against the accused persons which request was rejected by the C.A.W. Cell on the pretext that it was only meant to deal with dowry related cases. On 20th January, 2007 accused Raju visited the house of Complainant and asked her to live with him as his wife otherwise he will create unbearable circumstances for her and her family. It is alleged that the accused persons cheated the Complainant, kidnapped her by deceitful means, procured illegal marriage forcibly and committed criminal breach of trust by keeping her Crl.M.C.3333/2011 •,I~ educational certificates and photographs etc. ~

6. On this complaint of the Complainant learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed SHO PS Saraswati Vihar to register the FIR and investigate the matter. FIR No. 311/2011 was accordingly registered and statements of witnesses were recorded. After filing of the chargesheet, the matter was committed before the Sessions Court for trial. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 1ih March, 2011 framed charges against the accused persons.

7. On 20th July, 2011 statement ofVidya(the Complainant) was recorded by the Learned Trial Court wherein she stated that prior to her marriage she used to reside along with her parents and Urmila had talked with her parents regarding her marriage with accused Raju to which her parents refused as they were of different caste. After 5-6 days of the said talks of marriage, both Unnila and Raju had a talk with her parents regarding a job for her. On the pretext of getting her employed somewhere they demanded five photographs and her original school certificate. She handed over the same to accused Raju. On 15th December, 2004, they told her that the talks for her job have been finalized and she has to go for the interview so she should dress accordingly. On the pretext oftaking her to the interview accused Raju • '~~ took her to the temple where one girl namely Malikka Khan and a boy Anil met them and one Panditji started the Puja. Accused Raju put a garland and also compelled her to put a garland in his neck. This witness has further deposed that she was forcibly made to sign some blank papers and some documents, and accused Raju brandished a knife at her. She has specifically stated that the said threatening, execution of documents and taking of photographs took place in the presence of said pandit ji(petitioner herein) and he has also observed that the knife was being shown to her by accused Raju but he continued the marriage ceremony. This witness has fu1iher deposed that she came to know the name of said pandit as Pandit Pappu Dubey.

8. Thus from a perusal of the statement of complainant Vidya it is clear that the Petitioner herein was very much present and was the one who conducted the Vedic Ceremony. This act of the Petitioner perfonning the marriage of complainant with the accused knowing the fact that the marriage was being conducted at the point of knife raises a strong suspicion about the involvement of the Petitioner in the commission of the offence of forcing Vidya to marry accused Raju against her wishes. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has thus correctly passed the order summoning the Petitioner as there •, '': was sufficient evidence placed on record before him to prima facie ho: tlt the Petitioner was involved in the commission of the said offence. At the. stage of summoning, the Court is only to see that a strong suspicion arises against the accused ofhaving committed the offence.

9. I find no merit in the contention that the Learned Trial Court was predetermined as he had made observations against the petitioner at the time of framing of charge against the co-accused. The Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence on record at the time of framing charge has rightly observed that the co-accused committed the offence in connivance with the Petitioner. However, since no summons were issued against the Petitioner at the stage of cognizance, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge could summon him only under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which he did.

10. Keeping in view the facts of the present case I find no illegality much less any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Session •,1! Judge summoning the Petitioner. Hence, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Petition and application are dismissed. ~C OCTOBER 03, 2011 'vn'