BACHCHOO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on the complaint of opposite party no.2, a case under Section 498 -A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was registered at Police Station Motigarpur, District Sultanpur at Crime No.164 of 1998. The case was registered against six persons. However, the police after investigation submitted charge -sheet, in which the present petitioners were not charged. When the trial commenced and the statement of the informant was recorded as P.W.1, the opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners also, upon which the learned Magistrate after considering the material on record passed the impugned order dated 20.12.2005, by which the petitioners were also summoned to face trial.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred criminal revision No.32 of 2006, which was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Sultanpur on the ground that the summoning order passed by the Magistrate was in accordance with law and there was sufficient evidence against them.