RANJANA CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 / 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.9.2017 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Pilibhit, whereby he allowed the application of prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. And summoned the revisionist to face trial for offences under Sections 323 , 504 and 506 IPC in S.T. No. 10 of 2016 (State Vs. Sarvjeet Singh) under Sections 376 , 504 and 506 IPC and ? POCSO Act, P.S. Sungarhi, District Pilibhit.

(2.) It is stated in the grounds of revision that the impugned order has been passed absolutely against the spirit of the provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C. (to be referred as 'Code' in brief from here onwards).

(3.) The first informant namely Shivani Gupta, her father Umesh Chandra Gupta and mother Smt. Poonam Gupta were produced under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., only to falsely implicate the revisionist as all of them were interested witnesses who sought private vendetta with ulterior motive to pressurize the revisionist. The power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is conferred on the court to be used very sparingly which requires compelling reasons to exist for taking cognizance. No such compelling/cogent reason has been mentioned by the learned court below to justify the summoning of the revisionist. No satisfaction has been recorded by the court below to the effect that the evidence, if un-rebutted, would lead to conviction of the revisionist under Sections 323 , 504 and 506 IPC. The revisionist was falsely and maliciously not named by her name but was named as wife of Sarvjeet Singh with two other boys with unknown names in the First Information Report. On the basis of no sufficient material being collected during investigation, charge sheet was not submitted against revisionist and the two other unknown boys.