DINESH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 14. 10. 2008 passed by the C. J. M. , Gorakhpur, in Case No. 8451 of 2002, State Vs. Sheshmani, whereby the C. J. M. in exercise of the powers u/s 319 Cr. P. C. summoned the revisionists for the offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506, 498a, 406 I. P. C. and 3/ 4 Dowry Prohibition Act. It appears from the record that the revisionists and the husband of the victim were nominated in the FIR. After investigation charge sheet was submitted only against the husband. When the matter came to trial and the statement of the victim was recorded she stated that the revisionists also took active part in the commission of the offence for which the summoning order was passed. On the basis of the statement of the victim the court exercised the powers u/s 319 Cr. P. C. and summoned the revisionists. I have heard Mr. P. C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Mr. Srivastava argued that uncross-examined statement of PW1 could not be taken into use for exercising the powers u/s 319 Cr. P. C. as these powers should be exercised very sparingly. He also argued that a married Nanad and a Chachiya Sasur would not ordinarily take part in the whole episode. So far as the first argument is concerned, there is no doubt that the powers u/s 319 Cr. P. C. should not be used generally and should be exercised sparingly. But from the case under hand it appears that the Magistrate did not commit any error while exercising the powers u/s 319 Cr. P. C. It is apparent from the record that the victim not only named the revisionists in the FIR but she continued with that stand even during the trial and categorically stated about the participation of the revisionists. That being so, there could be no other way but to exercise the powers u/s 319 Cr. P. C. So far as the other argument is concerned, that is only a presumptive one and cannot be given any importance at this stage when there is the statement of the witness available on the record. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in this revision. The revision is dismissed. However, it is provided that in case the revisionists appear before the court concerned within a period of fifteen days from today and apply for bail, the same shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and if there is no impediment for disposal on the same day, the same day. During this period no coercive measure shall be taken against them and if already taken the same shall not be executed. .