ADESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State on the point of admission.

(2.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 4.4.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Etah in S.T. No. 204 of 2014 ( State Vs. Ritesh and others) under Section 498A, 304B I.P.C. and ? D.P. Act, Police Station Aliganj, District Etah arising out of Case Crime No. 328 of 2013 whereby the learned trial court has summoned the revisionists by exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists has argued that all the four revisionists are Jeth of the deceased, they have a specific plea of separate living and due to this reason they and their wives were not charge -sheeted by the I.O. However, the trial court by the impugned order has summoned the revisionists whereas it has exonerated their wives. Learned counsel has contended that now a days a tendency has developed to rope in all the family members of the deceased in cases of dowry harassment or dowry death. In this regard he has placed reliance on Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2013 AIR(SC) 181. He has further contended that according to the F.I.R. the deceased was being harassed in connection with additional demand of single gold chain and Rs. 1 lac in cash. Hence it cannot be said that all the 4 revisionists were going to be benefited even if the so called demand was fulfilled by the father of the deceased (respondent no. 2). Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted the legal position is well settled by catena of judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. should be exercised very sparingly and with great care and perspicacity. He has placed reliance on the recent case Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab,2014 1 JIC 539 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Cour5t has held that "as fresh summoning of an accused involves delay of trial, therefore, the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original) and subsequent has to be different."