MAHARANI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Maharani and four others have preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 1 -3 - 2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bulandshahr in Session Trial No. 922 of 2004, State v. Amit Bhardwaj & Ors., under Sections 307, 498 - A IPC & 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act, whereby after hearing Counsel for the revisionists under Section 227, Cr. P.C., the Court below ordered for framing of charges under Section 498 -A IPC & 3/4, D.P. Act against the present revisionists and under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC alongwith 498 -A IPC & 3/4, D.P. Act against non revisionist Suresh Chand.

(2.) HEARD Sri Sunil Kumar, Counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.

(3.) IT is next contended that even if the entire allegations are taken to be true, even then no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out as the act of other accused Suresh Chand is individual. Under the facts and circumstances, no charge should be framed under Section 307 IPC. I have perused the entire materials on record.