SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Advocate Sri V. M. Zaidi assisted by Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, the learned counsel for the complainant, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) The applicants had challenged the order dated 29.9.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Bijnor dated 29.9.2008 in Criminal Revision No. 95 of 2008 arising out of order dated 5.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Bijnor in Case No. 2487 of 2007 whereby the applicants have been summoned under Sections 498A, 325, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 3/4, D. P. Act on an application moved by the complainant under Section 319, Cr.P.C.

(3.) The applicant No. 1 is the brother-in-law, the applicant No. 2 is the married sister-in-law and the applicants 3 and 4 are unmarried sisters-in-law of the opposite party No. 2. According to the prosecution case the opposite party No. 2 had lodged a first information report against her husband and in-laws including the applicants on 21.5.2005 at 8.15 p.m. in respect of the incident occurred on 6.9.2003 when she was ousted from her house on account of non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry and was medically examined in the District Hospital by her father thereafter due to the intervention of the respected members of the village and the relatives the first Information report was not lodged against them and when on 4.1.2005 she went to her matrimonial house alongwith her father he was brutally assaulted by them and broken his leg who was also medically examined in the District Hospital, therefore, an application was moved to lodge the first information report thereafter on the intervention of the police the first information report was lodged against the applicants and other in-laws of the opposite party No. 2. During investigation the charge-sheet was submitted only against her husband Neeraj, father-in-law and mother-in-law, namely, Harpal and Smt. Vidyawati and the trial proceeded and the statement of the complainant was recorded on 16.10.2006 wherein she had disclosed the name of the applicants also that they had been involved in demand of dowry and assault and was beaten by them and when she was ousted they were also present at the time of the incident. Thereafter the complainant moved an application under Section 319. Cr.P.C. on the same day stating therein that the Investigating Officer has not investigated the case in a fair manner and submitted the charge-sheet only against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, though they were already named in the first information report, therefore, they are also liable to be summoned to face the trial.