Raj HC sets aside summoning of in-laws under Section 319 CrPC in dowry death case

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that the extraordinary power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised on the basis of omnibus and general allegations and requires strong and cogent evidence indicating probable involvement of the proposed accused.

Justice Farjand Ali was deciding S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 605/2017 filed by Rajni Soni, Rajesh Soni, Mohini Devi and Bhagirath Soni challenging the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 51/2014 (State vs. Deepak Soni), whereby the trial court had partly allowed an application under Section 319 CrPC and taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

The prosecution case, as recorded in the order, was that on 02.07.2014, complainant Bhagwan Ram lodged a report alleging that his daughter Santosh, married to Deepak for about ten years and mother of three daughters, was residing in a joint family. It was alleged that Deepak and his father Bhagirath were habitual gamblers and had incurred financial losses, and for 2–3 months prior to the incident, Santosh was subjected to pressure and harassment for bringing ₹5 lakhs from her parental home. On 02.07.2014, Santosh was found hanging and the complainant alleged that she had been beaten, murdered and hanged to give the colour of suicide.

After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet only against Deepak, finding no material against the remaining family members. During trial, after recording statements of the complainant and other witnesses, an application under Section 319 CrPC was filed seeking summoning of the remaining family members for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 302 and 201 IPC. The trial court partly allowed the application and took cognizance against the present petitioners for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

The High Court examined the legal principles governing Section 319 CrPC and referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab (AIR 2014 SC 1400), which held that the power under Section 319 is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and only where evidence recorded during trial discloses more than a mere prima facie case. The Court also referred to Sukhbeer Singh Khaira vs State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 289, reiterating that the test is whether the evidence is of such quality and weight that it indicates probable involvement of the proposed accused.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that the gravamen of the allegations centred upon the husband Deepak and father-in-law Bhagirath. The statements revealed that specific acts were attributed substantially to Deepak and Bhagirath, whereas the assertions against Rajesh (jeth), Rajni (jethani) and Mohini (saas) were couched in general expressions that “all in-laws used to harass” the deceased. No specific overt act, date, instance or independent conduct was delineated with respect to these three individuals.

The Court noted that during investigation, carried out in more than one round, the investigating agency had chosen to file charge-sheet only against Deepak and found no material sufficient to prosecute the remaining family members. Upon cumulative appreciation of the evidence recorded, the Court held that the material against Rajesh, Rajni and Mohini did not rise above generalised accusations bereft of substance and did not disclose strong and cogent material sufficient to array them as additional accused.

Accordingly, the revision petition was partly allowed. The impugned order dated 13.04.2017 was set aside insofar as it related to petitioners Rajesh, Rajni and Mohini, who stood discharged from the proceedings arising out of the summoning order under Section 498-A IPC.

Insofar as petitioner Bhagirath was concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the revision on his behalf, and the petition stood dismissed to that extent. The Court recorded that cognizance had been taken against Bhagirath only under Section 498-A IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. Referring to Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and the safeguards under Sections 41 and 41-A CrPC (corresponding to Section 35 BNSS), the Court directed Bhagirath to appear before the trial court on or before 30th March. Upon his appearance and filing of an application for regular bail, the trial court was directed to consider and decide the same on the same day and release him on bail upon furnishing appropriate bonds, subject to usual conditions.

The Court also noted that the record appeared to have been summoned without a specific judicial order and directed that the record be transmitted back forthwith. The trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings and endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest.

Case Title
Rajni Soni & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Case Number
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 605/2017

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Farjand Ali

Date of Order
05/02/2026

Advocates
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay Mathur, Ms. Ruchita Mathur
For the Respondents: Mr. Devendra Deelu for Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi; Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA

Judgments Relied Upon
Hardeep Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 2014 SC 1400
Sukhbeer Singh Khaira vs State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289
Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273