RASHIDA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) The present criminal revision has been filed against impugned order dated 22.5.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.1, Bijnor in S.T. No.137 of 2010 (State v. Mairaj) under Sections 376, 313 and 506 I.P.C. summoning the revisionist for trial together with accused Mairaj on application 10-B of prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973

(3.) The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the F.I.R. of the case was lodged after inordinate delay of about one year with the allegation that Mairaj established sexual relations with the opposite party no.2 and got her pregnancy terminated in connivance with his Bhabhi Smt. Rashida, the revisionist; that after investigation the charge sheet was submitted only against Mairaj and the revisionist was exonerated; that the case against Mairaj was committed to the sessions and the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track committed mistake in passing the impugned order on an application moved by the prosecution, by placing reliance on the statement of first informant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 which has no evidentiary value; that the Sessions Judge could have considered the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 only upon the evidence on oath of the prosecution witnesses or any of them and upon finding sufficient prima facie evidence could have summoned non charge sheeted accused for trial together under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 and had no jurisdiction to pass such order on the basis of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973