The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently rejected a woman’s plea to prosecute the parents and grandmother of a man she has accused of rape on the false promise of marriage..It was the woman’s case the man’s family members had also assured her of the marriage with him and thus abetted his false promise. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal said that though the role of the proposed accused is adverted to at the initial stage in the First Information Report (FIR) as well as in statement of the complainant during trial, it will not be sufficient to take cognizance against them. ”The act of sexual intimacy was only between the prosecutrix and [xxx] and assurances given by respondents No. 3 to 5, the parents and grand mother of [xxx], cannot, by any stretch of imagination be considered sufficient to take cognizance against them for the offence under Section 376 IPC or any other offence,” the Court said..After the police chargesheeted only the man, the woman had moved an application under Section 358 (Power to Proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the trial court for summoning his family members as well. However, the trial court dismissed the plea on January 22. The woman then approached the High Court..Justice Singh said the power to summon additional suspects is discretionary and extraordinary.“It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Court is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner,” the Court explained. The Court, therefore, found that the trial judge had correctly dismissed the application moved by the complainant after concluding that no prima facie case was made out against the family members to summon them as additional accused. ”The order under challenge is logical, legal and does not call for interference,” the Bench said while dismissing the revision plea..Advocate Kamal Narula represented the petitioners.Additional Advocate General Kunwarbir Singh represented the State of Punjab..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
