Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2841 of 2010 Petitioner :- Lokesh & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- P.K. Dubey,Dharampal Singh,S. Niranjan Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 28.5.2010
passed by the A.C.J.M. I, Gautam Budh Nagar, in Case No. 3485 of 2009,
State Vs. Shiv Mohan and others, whereby the revisionists were summoned to
stand trial with the accused already on trial in exercise of the powers u/s 319
Cr.P.C.
It appears from the record that initially a case at Crime No. 29 of 2009 was
registered against Shiv Mohan, Jagdish, Omwati, Lokesh, Rajrani, Rajesh and
Rachna. It was investigated upon and after investigation charge sheet was
submitted only against Shiv Mohan, Omwati and Jagdish and the revisionists
were exonerated. When the case came at the stage of trial and the statement of
PW1, the victim, was recorded, she stated about the active participation of the
revisionists regarding the offences punishable u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and 3/ 4 D. P. Act. After this statement an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was
moved by the prosecution whereby a request was made for summoning the
revisionists to stand trial for the aforesaid offences. The trial court after going
through the statement of PW1 came to the conclusion that the participation of
the revisionists is also appearing from the statement of PW1, therefore, the
impugned order was passed.
Heard Mr. S. Niranjan, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for
the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by Mr. Niranjan that the revisionists had no concerned
whatsoever with the affairs of the family of the husband of the victim. Lokesh
is the brother of the husband of O.P. No. 2, Rajrani and Rachna are the sisters
of the husband of O.P. No. 2 and Rajesh is husband of Rajrani. Therefore,
they could not be instrumental either in the commission of the cruelty or in
the demand of dowry.
I do feel that this argument of Mr. Niranjan is only a presumptive one. When
there is substantive evidence indicating towards the active participation of the
revisionists for the offences punishable u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/
4 D. P. Act, therefore, it is fully justified on the part of the trial court to
summon them in exercise of the powers u/s 319 Cr.P.C. as the statement of
PW1 was sufficient to fasten guilt upon the revisionists in all probabilities.
This revision has no force.
The revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2010
Pcl