SUSHILA AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 22.5.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Deoria in S.T. No. 80 of 2012 (State Vs. Babban and others) whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has summoned the revisionists to face trial under Sections 323, 504, 325 and 308 I.P.C. alongwith other co-accused persons.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists as well as learned A.G.A. on the point of admission and perused the record.

(3.) The submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist are that the court below has summoned the revisionists in a routine manner without application of its judicial mind. It has been next contended that the court below has not considered that there was no clinching and cogent evidence against the revisionists and only an observation that the revisionists have been found involved in the occurrence is not at all sufficient to invoke the extra ordinary power conferred under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the Apex Court? in a catena of judgments has repeatedly held that the summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. stands on a different footing and it should be dealt with the higher standards by the courts,? sparingly and only if, compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the person other than accused.