GANGS PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This is a revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C. directed against the judgment and order dated 16-9-1991 passed by the then IX Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Revision No. 245 of 1989, Smt. Indrawati Pandey v. State and others. That revision had arisen out of order dated 1-7-1989 passed by the then III Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi in Criminal Case No. 1829 of 1987, Smt. Indravati Pandey v. Chandrama Pandey and others, whereby the learned Magistrate directed that only accused Chandrama Pandey and Ram Lochan Pandey be sum moned to face the charge under Section 494/109,1. P. C. and he discharged accused Nos. 2,3,4,5,7 and 9 in absence of proper evidence on record. Accused No. 6 had died pedente lite,

(2.) SMT. Indrawati Pandey is admitted ly the wife of Chandrama Pandey whose marriage had taken place on 7-5-1974. SMT, Indrawati Pandey filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging illtreatement, demand of dowry, mis behaviour etc. at the hands of opposite parties. SMT. Indrawati Pandey also al leged that her husband Chandrama Pan dey had remarried with another lady Manju Pandey with the help of the other members of the family. The remarriage of Chandrama Pandey makes out an offence under Section 494, I. P. C. and, therefore, the family members were arrayed as ac cused in the case by SMT. Indrawati Pandey.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionists submits that this is the stage of admission and the direction of the learned Sessions Judge for summoning all the ac cused-revisionists is unwarranted. He should not have issued the direction to the learned Magistrate. THE direction was that the learned trial Court shall summon Ganga Pandey, Daya Pandey, Rajendra Pandey sons of Raj Nath Pandey, and Smt. Manju Pandey daughter of Ram Lochan Pandey and the wife of Ram Lochan Pan dey to face the trial for the offence under Section 494 read with Section 109, I. P. C.