DAMODAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.

(2.) The present criminal revisin has been filed for against the summoning order dated 21.7.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Moradabad in sessions trial No. 720 of 2006 under Section 498-A, 304-B and 315 IPC whereby the revisionists have been summoned to face trial under under Section 319, Cr.P.C. it is contended by the learned Counsel for the revisionists that the revisionist No. 1 and 2 are the brother-in-law (Nand and Nandoi) of the deceased, who are living separately and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that the revisionists are in no way connected with the commission of alleged offence and, therefore, criminal prosecution of the revisionists is bad in law.

(3.) Learned AGA has contended that the revisionists have been named in the FIR. Its is further contended that in the statements of PW.1 and PW.2, Jai Pal Singh and Mukut Lal, as specific allegation have been made against the revisionists showing their complicity in the commission of the alleged offence. It is thus contended by the leaned AGA that the order impugned suffers from no infirmity in law.