AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. S. Dhanik, J
This Criminal Revision is preferred against the order dated 27.7.2013 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions
Trial No. 215/2012, State v. Dhruv Kumar & Others, whereby the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 CrPC has been allowed
and the revisionists have been summoned to face the trial for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
Facts, in brief, are that the marriage of the complainant Smt. Phoolmala was solemnized with Dhruv Kumar Dhali on 20.5.2009. Co-accused
Vishwanath and his wife Smt. Meera were the mediators. After the marriage, matrimonial discord occurred between the couple and Smt. Phoolmala
ultimately filed an FIR on 9.9.2009. She named her husband Druv Kumar Dhali, mediators Vishwanath and Smt. Meera, her in-laws Dhirendra Dhali
@ Virendra Nath Dhali and Smt. Shanti Dhali and her brother-in-law Prahlad Dhali in the FIR. After the investigation, the police submitted
chargesheet against Druv Kumar Dhali, Vishwanath and Smt. Meera only whereupon the Trial Court summoned these three accused persons to the
face the trial for the offences under Sections 494, 495, 496, 498A, 376, 323, 506 and 120B IPC.
During the course of trial, complainant was examined as PW1, her father was examined as PW2 and her brother was examined as PW3. It is after
the deposition of PW1, PW2 and PW3, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the revisionists which was allowed
by the impugned order and revisionists were summoned to face the trial for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Aggrieved thereby, revisionists
preferred the present criminal revision.
Learned Counsel for the revisionists contended that the Court below has erred in summoning the revisionists; the investigation officer during the
course of investigation did not find any evidence against the revisionists and therefore revisionists were not chargesheeted; revisionists were living
separately from the complainant; and the revisionists never ever demanded dowry. Learned Counsel for the revisionists also submitted that the
revisionist no. 1 is father-in-law and the revisionist no.2 is mother-in-law of the complainant and they are aged about 80 and 70 years respectively.
Admittedly, after the trial, all the three accused including the husband of the complainant have been acquitted of the charge of offences under Sections
494, 495, 496, 498A, 323 and 506 IPC. Accused Druv Kumar Dhali has been convicted only for the offences under Section 376(1) IPC and the
accused Smt. Meera and Vishwanath have been convicted only for the offence under Section 120-B IPC. Undisputedly, all these three accused
persons have been acquitted of the charge under Section 498A IPC, the offence for which the present revisionists have been summoned to face trial.
Present revisionists were also named in the FIR, but the Investigation Officer did not find evidence to chargesheet them.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on the record, in my considered view, no prima facie case is made out for
summoning the revisionists to face trial for the offence under Section 498A IPC.
Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 28,4
where the Supreme Court has observed that it is only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the
court that the power under Section 319 CrPC should be exercised and it should not be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner. In Sarabjit Singh v.
State of Punjab, (2009) 16 SCC 46, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a higher standard should be set up for the purpose of invoking the
jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code. Mere ipse dixit would not serve the purpose.
In view of what has been set forth above, I find force in this revision. It is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 27.7.2013 is quashed. Inform the
Court concerned accordingly.