SMT. BHAGWATI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2011 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Jhansi in Special Case No. 165 of 2007 (Sawitri v. Ram Prakash Yadav & Others) under Sections 395, 342, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. allowing the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 moved by opposite party No. 2 and summoning the revisionists for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Heard Shri Devesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists, Shri Mahesh Kumar Tripathi, Advocate for opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionists contends that the opposite party No. 2 filed a false complaint against the revisionists as well as Ram Prakash Yadav upon which after recording the statements of complainant and witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., 1973 the Special Judge vide order dated 11.3.2008 issued process against Ram Prakash for the offences under Sections 395, 342, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and rejected the complaint under the provisions of Section 203 Cr.P.C., 1973 against the rest seven accused who are revisionists; that during trial after the statement of the complainant on oath before the Court the opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 for summoning the other accused persons named in complaint and the learned Special Judge has acted wrongly and illegally in allowing the application and summoning of the revisionists for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C; that the learned Special Judge failed to consider that no specific role has been assigned to any of the revisionists and only general allegations have been made against all of them and the active role has been assigned only to accused Ram Prakash; that the revision is liable to be allowed and the impugned order for summoning the revisionists is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 supported the impugned order and the learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 contended that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that all the eight accused persons, the revisionists as well as Ram Prakash actively participated in the crime in question and caused multiple injuries to opposite party no2; that Special Judge acted wrongly in rejecting the complaint against revisionists under the provisions of Section 203 Cr.P.C;, 1973 that opposite party No. 2 and her witnesses have stated on oath in their statements during trial that all the accused persons actively participated in the incident in question and mere examination in chief is sufficient for being treated evidence for the purposes of Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973