MONA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Aggrieved by their summoning order dated 15- 7-2006, under Section 319 Cr. P. C. , passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mathura in criminal case No. 1312 of 2005, State v. Gajendra Pal Singh and Ors. , the three revisionists-Km. Mona, Smt. Poonam and Balvir Singh have approached this Court in it's revisional jurisdiction under Section 397/401 Cr. P. C. with the prayer that the said order of summoning them in the aforesaid case be quashed. Their interim prayer is for stay of further proceeding of the said case No. 1312 of 2005, State v. Gajendra Pal Singh and Ors. , interregnum.

(2.) IN short the factual matrix of the case are that a FIR was lodged by Raghunath Prasad against Veeri Singh, his wife Smt. Prabha, his two sons Gajendra Singh and K. P. Singh and two daughters Km. Mona, Smt. Poonam and one Balbir Singh at police station Govardhan District Mathura as crime number 270 of 2003 under Sections 498-A, 323 CPC and 3/4 D. P. Act in respect of an incident dated 26-11-2001 to 14-7- 2003. The narration of incident in the said FIR were that Kusum Singh, daughter of the informant Raghunath Prasad Pali was married to Gajendra Singh son of Veeri Singh on 26-11-2001. IN the marriage the informant had spent Rs. 5 lakhs which included one lakh fifty thousand cash, one Hero Honda Motorcycle, 20 Tolas of gold 1 1/2 KG of silver ornaments fridge, Washing Machine and other house hold articles. The accused were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage and started torturing Smt. Kusum for bring a car. For the fulfillment of the said demand Kusum was assaulted also and was subjected to torture. Kusum made a complaint of the said demand to the informant and other relatives. The informant tried to pacify the in laws but of no avail. There was a conciliatory meeting also in which the accused had said that they will not demand the dowry henceforth. On 18-7-2003 the accused persons accompanied with Kusum came to do Govardhan Parikarma on a jeep and then while returning they dropped Smt. Kusum near Agra Canal at 1. 30 a. m. in the night of 14-7-2003 and went away warning her that she will not bring the car they will accept her back. Smt. Kusum tried to plead that her parents were poor and they will not be able to fulfill the car demand she was assaulted as well. This incident, was witnessed by Pooran, Banwari Lal, Pritam Singh, Bhagwan Das, who all saved Kusum. The accused then left for Mathura. The informant tried to lodge the report on 14- 7-2003 and 17-7-2003 but the same was not registered. At last he filed a written FIR to Senior Superintendent of Police Mathura on 18- 7-2003 and on his direction his FIR was registered on 16-10- 2003 at 8. 30 p. m. at PS Govardhan District Mathura as crime number 270 of 2003 under Sections 498-A, 323, IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act. The police investigated the matter and ultimately submitted a charge-sheet against rest of the accused persons but for the revisionist against whom the police did not find offence being committed by them. The submission of charge-sheet was succeeded by trial in the Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Mathura as case number 1312 of 2005, State v. Gajendra Pal and Ors. IN the trial during the examination of PW 2 Smt. Kusum an application, 27 Ba, was filed by the prosecution to summon the revisionists under Section 319 Cr. P. C. but the same was rejected by the trial Court vide it's order dated 6-6-2006 on the grounds that the three revisionist are married Nanad and Nandoi and she used to reside in her in laws house and that merely because they were named in the statement they should not be summoned. Moreover the cross- examination of PW. 2 was continuing and therefore, till her cross- examination is over there was no reason to summon the revisionists vide Annexure No. 3 to the affidavit filed in support of this revision. However from the record it transpires that after the examination of PW 2 Kusum, the wife was over on 9- 6-2006 the prosecution filed another application for summoning the revisionist under Section 319 Cr. P. C. vide paper No. 48-A, which was allowed by the trial Court vide it's impugned order dated 15-7-2006 which order is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) LEARNED AGA as well as learned Counsel for the victim contended that since the revisionist are named in the statements, therefore, they are liable to be summoned and there is no illegality in the impugned order which deserves to be upheld. They further submitted that the demand of the car or of RS. Two lakhs in lieu thereof was made by all the accused and therefore, the summoning order is not bad in law. They also contended that once a person is named in the statement recorded in Court as an accused the Court has no option but to summon him for trial. In their submission the revision lacked merit and deserved to be dismissed.