RUBI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The conglomeration of a dozen of revisionists in this revision consists of a pair of families of two sibling brothers namely Sarfuddin (Revisionist No. 6) and Riazuddin (Revisionist No. 7) both sons of Sirazuddin. Munni Begum and Smt. Maina Begum, revisionists No. 4 and 8 are their wives and Rubi (No. 1), Shammo (No. 5), Bantu (No. 9), Jafruddin @ Fauzi (No. 11) and Fakhruddin (No. 12) are the children of revisionist Nos. 6 and 4 while Batto (No. 2), Shaira (No. 3) and Shanu (No. 10) are the issues of revisionist Nos. 7 and 8. Jointly the two families have challenged their summoning order dated 24- 10-2005 passed by ACJM, Ist, Agra, in case No. 2451 of 2005, Wahabuddin v. Sharfuddin, for offences under Section 498-A and Section 4 D. P. Act relating to police station Lohamandi District Agra in this revision with the prayer to quash the same, the subsequent prayer being that the proceeding of the aforesaid case pending in the lower Court be stayed pendente lite.

(2.) THE narration of facts indicates that an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. was filed by informant respondent No. 2 Wahajuddin @ Wajid Hussain and it seems that the order for investigation was passed by the concerned Magistrate on the said application which resulted into registration of F. I. R. of crime number 115 of 2004 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and 3/4 D. P. Act at Police Station Lohamandi District Agra on 15-5- 2004. THE allegations levelled in the F. I. R. were that the two daughters of the informant namely Kausar Jahan and Kuresh Jahan were married to the two brothers Faqruddin and Jafruddin @ Fauzi, revisionists No. 11 and 12, on 20-2-2004 at 38/127 Motikunj, Lohamandi District Agra. THE informant had spent Rs. 3 lakhs each in those marriages and had given a lot of dowry including Hero Honda Motor Cycle, Fridge, Colour TV, Washing Machine, Cooler etc. besides gold and silver ornaments but the family members of in-laws house started demanding a Maruti car also in the marriage and because of non-fulfilment of the said demand started torturing the two brides. THE two wives made a complaint to the informant regarding the said torture which included physical assault also. Informant alongwith Iqbal, Jamaluddin, Mohd. Hanif and others tried to pacify the family members of the in-laws house on which the two wives were brought back to the in-laws house. On 6-5-2004 the accused demanded money from the brother of wives on the pretext of defending the grooms in criminal cases pending against them under Gangster's Act and Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. On inability being shown by the brother to fulfill money demand the two wives were beaten by shoes in front of the brother. With other allegations it is averred that on 8-5-2004 the two sister brides were assaulted and were left near Usha Devi hospital by the accused. THE informant picked them up and got them hospitalized and medically examined. THE injury reports of the two wives, filed cumulatively, alongwith the counter- affidavit as Annexure CA-3 indicates that the two wives sustained injuries. THE police after registration of the F. I. R. investigated the matter and after due investigation submitted final report No. 37 of 2004 on 8-7-2004 in the Court. THE informant Wahajuddin @ Wajid Hussain was noticed by the trial Magistrate who filed a protest petition against the acceptance of the final report on 4-5-2005. From the impugned order it transpires that the Magistrate, on the said protest petition recorded the statement of the informant and also examined Kaushal Jahan CW 1, Kuresh Jahan CW 2 and Mehrajuddin CW 3. After recording the said statements the Magistrate found prima facie case being disclosed against the revisionists and consequently, by passing the impugned order dated 24-10-2005 the Magistrate A. C. J. M.-I Agra summoned the revisionists for offenses under Section 498-A, I. P. C. and Section 4 D. P. Act and fixed 20- 11-2005 for their appearances, which order is under challenge in the present revision.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the informant on the contrary contended that there is no illegality in the summoning order and all the revisionists were rightly summoned by the trial Court. LEARNED Counsel for the respondent informant alongwith the learned A. G. A. further submitted that at the stage of summoning disputed questions of fact cannot be critically appreciated and therefore the revision should be dismissed. They further contended that at the stage of summoning only the prosecution allegations are to be looked into without any addition or substraction and since there are allegations of demand of dowry and torture therefore summoning order under Section 498-A, I. P. C. and Section 4 D. P. Act is fully justified and the instant revision being meritless deserves to be dismissed.