Uttarakhand High Court
Renu Dhiman vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 9 July, 2025
2025:UHC:5887
Reserved on : 18.06.2025
Delivered on : 09.07.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc.Application No.2278 of 2019
Renu Dhiman ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. .....Respondent
Presence:
Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel, for the Respondent.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been
filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for
setting aside the order dated 04.09.2019 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Dehradun, in Criminal
Revision No. 137 of 2019, titled Uma Dhiman and Another v. Smt.
Renu Dhiman and Another. The Applicant further prays for the
restoration of the summoning order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun, in Case
No. 3499 of 2016.
2. The factual background of the case, briefly stated, is that
the Applicant lodged an FIR being Case Crime No. 110 of 2016 at
Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun, against three
persons, namely (i) Deepak Dhiman (husband), (ii) Uma Dhiman
(mother-in-law), and (iii) Amit Dhiman (brother-in-law), alleging
1
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2278 of 2019, Renu DhimanVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5887
commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The gravamen of the FIR is that the Applicant was
subjected to physical and mental cruelty on account of unlawful
demands of dowry made by the accused persons. The FIR
specifically attributes acts of harassment and cruelty to
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (mother-in-law and brother-in-law) in
addition to the husband.
4. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating
Officer filed a charge sheet dated 20.06.2016 against only the
husband (accused No. 1) and submitted a final report (closure) in
respect of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
5. Aggrieved by the exclusion of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3
from the charge sheet, the Applicant filed a protest petition dated
09.11.2016 under Section 173(8) CrPC before the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun. The said protest petition was
dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2017.
6. During the course of the trial, after recording the statement
of the complainant (PW-1), the Applicant moved an application
under Section 319 CrPC for summoning Respondents Nos. 2 and 3
to face trial as additional accused.
7. The application under Section 319 CrPC was allowed by
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun, vide
order dated 08.04.2019, primarily relying upon the statements made
2
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2278 of 2019, Renu DhimanVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5887
by the complainant in her examination-in-chief and the contents of
the FIR.
8. Aggrieved by the summoning order, Respondents Nos. 2
and 3 preferred Criminal Revision No. 137 of 2019 before the
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Dehradun. The
Revisional Court allowed the revision vide order dated 04.09.2019,
setting aside the summoning order dated 08.04.2019.
9. The Revisional Court held that since the protest petition
filed earlier by the Applicant had already been dismissed on
07.10.2017, the subsequent application under Section 319 CrPC
amounts to a review of the earlier order and is impermissible in
law.
10. The Revisional Court further observed that the evidence
adduced during the trial was not sufficient to invoke the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC, which requires
strong and cogent evidence indicative of the involvement of the
persons sought to be summoned.
11. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
impugned order dated 04.09.2019 passed by the Revisional Court
suffers from patent illegality and is unsustainable in law.
12. It is contended that the Revisional Court has erred in
equating the protest petition under Section 173(8) CrPC with the
application under Section 319 CrPC. The two proceedings are
distinct, operate at different stages of the criminal process, and are
governed by different legal standards.
3
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2278 of 2019, Renu DhimanVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5887
13. Learned counsel submitted that the dismissal of the protest
petition does not operate as res judicata against the exercise of
power under Section 319 CrPC, which arises upon the emergence
of additional evidence during trial.
14. It is further contended that the statement of the
complainant recorded during trial, coupled with the specific
allegations in the FIR, clearly disclose the active involvement of
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the commission of offences under
Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act.
15. The learned Magistrate rightly exercised the jurisdiction
under Section 319 CrPC, which empowers the Court to summon
any person who, though not an accused at the commencement of
trial, appears to have committed an offence based on the evidence
led during trial.
16. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92,
and Brindaban Das v. State of West Bengal, (2009) 3 SCC 329, to
contend that the power under Section 319 CrPC is wide, though
discretionary, and can be exercised even against persons not
charge-sheeted, provided there is more than a prima facie case.
17. It is argued that the Revisional Court has adopted a hyper-
technical approach and has misapplied the law by setting aside the
summoning order.The Applicant, therefore, prays that the
impugned order dated 04.09.2019 passed by the Revisional Court
4
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2278 of 2019, Renu DhimanVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5887
be set aside and the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the learned
Magistrate summoning Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 be restored.
18. Learned counsel for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 submitted
that the FIR itself is based on false and frivolous allegations aimed
at harassing the family members of the husband.It is contended
that the investigating officer, upon a thorough investigation, found
no material against Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and rightly excluded
them from the charge sheet.
19. Learned counsel argued that the statement of the
complainant recorded during the trial does not disclose any
concrete or specific act attributable to Respondents Nos. 2 and 3
that would warrant their summoning under Section 319 CrPC.
20. It is further submitted that the summoning order passed by
the learned Magistrate amounts to a review of the earlier order
dated 07.10.2017, whereby the protest petition was dismissed. Such
a review is impermissible in law.
21. The Revisional Court has rightly relied upon the settled
principle that the power under Section 319 CrPC is to be exercised
sparingly and only in cases where strong and cogent evidence
emerges during trial, pointing toward the involvement of the
persons sought to be summoned.
22. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2000) 3 SCC 262, and Periyasami v. S. Nallasamy, (2019)
4 SCC 537, to contend that the power under Section 319 CrPC is
5
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2278 of 2019, Renu DhimanVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5887
extraordinary and cannot be invoked in a casual or cavalier
manner.
23. It is contended that the Revisional Court has passed a well-
reasoned and legally sound order, which does not warrant
interference by this Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 CrPC.
24. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the
records.
25. At the outset, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the
legal framework governing the exercise of power under Section 319
CrPC. The provision empowers a Court to proceed against any
person, not being an accused, if it appears from the evidence that
such person has committed an offence for which they could be tried
together with the accused already facing trial. The jurisdiction
under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and should be exercised
sparingly and with utmost care.
26. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92, has authoritatively
settled the contours of this power. It has been held that the
satisfaction required for summoning a person under Section 319
CrPC is higher than the standard for framing of charge but short of
the standard necessary for conviction. The Court must be
convinced that there is more than a prima facie case against the
person sought to be summoned.
27. It is equally well settled that the power under Section 319
CrPC can be exercised at any stage after commencement of inquiry
6
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2278 of 2019, Renu DhimanVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5887
or trial but before the pronouncement of judgment. This power can
be invoked regardless of whether the person was named in the FIR
or included in the charge sheet by the investigating agency.
28. Turning to the facts of the present case, the summoning
order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate rests
primarily on the testimony of the complainant (PW-1) recorded
during the trial, coupled with the contents of the FIR. The learned
Magistrate, upon a reading of the statement of PW-1, formed the
view that a case is made out to summon Respondents No. 2 and 3
to face trial.
29. However, on an examination of the statement of PW-1, it is
evident that the allegations made are general and omnibus in
nature. There is an absence of any specific incident, date, or overt
act directly attributable to Respondents No. 2 and 3. While it is true
that harassment often occurs within the confines of domestic life in
matrimonial disputes, the law nonetheless requires that specific
and cogent material must be presented during trial before the
extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC is exercised.
30. This position finds fortification in the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brindaban Das v. State of West Bengal,
(2009) 3 SCC 329, where it was observed that vague allegations
without precise attribution of roles do not meet the threshold
required for summoning additional accused under Section 319
CrPC.
31. The learned counsel for the Applicant has argued that the
dismissal of the protest petition dated 07.10.2017 would not
7
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2278 of 2019, Renu DhimanVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5887
preclude the Magistrate from exercising power under Section 319
CrPC. This submission, in principle, is correct. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) has clarified that the
proceedings under Section 319 CrPC are distinct and independent
of the process of cognizance based on a charge sheet or the outcome
of a protest petition. The dismissal of a protest petition does not bar
the Court from summoning a person if sufficient evidence emerges
during the course of trial.
32. To that extent, the finding of the revisional court that the
Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to summon Respondents No. 2 and 3
on account of the earlier dismissal of the protest petition cannot be
sustained in law.
33. Nevertheless, the Revisional Court's conclusion that the
material on record does not meet the threshold under Section 319
CrPC merits acceptance. It is a settled proposition that mere
reference to a person in the FIR or general allegations made in the
examination-in-chief of a complainant cannot by themselves justify
summoning under Section 319 CrPC unless the testimony discloses
specific involvement or incriminating material that creates a
reasonable prospect of conviction.
34. This Court also takes note of the caution sounded by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michael Machado v. CBI, (2000) 3 SCC
262, and reiterated in Periyasami v. S. Nallasamy, (2019) 4 SCC 537,
that the power under Section 319 CrPC is not to be exercised in a
routine manner but only upon the satisfaction of the Court that
8
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2278 of 2019, Renu DhimanVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5887
strong and cogent evidence exists against the person sought to be
added as an accused.
35. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that the investigating
agency, after due investigation, submitted a final report in favour
of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. While the opinion of the investigating
agency does not bind the Court, the absence of any corroborative
evidence during the trial further reinforces the conclusion that the
evidence against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is, at best, tenuous.
36. In matrimonial disputes, there is a growing judicial
recognition of the tendency to implicate the entire family of the
husband. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao v. State of
Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, has cautioned against the mechanical
summoning of relatives without substantive evidence. This
consideration assumes particular significance in the present case,
where the allegations against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are general
in nature, without any specific act of cruelty or demand for dowry
being attributed to them.
37. On a holistic appreciation of the evidence, this Court is
satisfied that the learned Magistrate fell into error in exercising the
power under Section 319 CrPC in the absence of evidence of the
quality required by law. At the same time, the conclusion drawn by
the Revisional Court that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction on
account of the prior dismissal of the protest petition cannot be
upheld, as it runs contrary to the law laid down in Hardeep Singh
(supra).
9
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2278 of 2019, Renu DhimanVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:5887
38. Nonetheless, since the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the
Revisional Court, namely, that the summoning order is
unsustainable on merits, is correct, no interference is warranted
with the final outcome of the revisional order.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, the Criminal
Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, is dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
SHIKSHA BINJOLA
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b
1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18F
E29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.07.09 11:09:05 +05’30’
10
Criminal Misc. Application No. 2278 of 2019, Renu DhimanVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.
Ashish Naithani J.
[ad_1]
Source link