SANJU THAKUR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Raj Kumar Rawat, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Paritosh Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 17.8.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Aligarh, in S.T.No.927 of 2012 (State vs. Raju Singh and others), under sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, PS. Gandhipark, District Aligarh by which the learned trial court has rejected the application of the applicant-revisionist under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the accused Ram Prakash for trial in the aforesaid case.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that an application 39 Kha under section 319 Cr.P.C. was given by the complainant stating that the name of Ram Prakash was mentioned in the First Information Report and PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in their statements have stated that the said Ram Prakash was also involved in commission of crime. According to the complainant this fact was brought in the knowledge of said Ram Prakash that the accused persons are demanding rupees five lakh in dowry and requested that he should try to convince them but Sri Ram Prakash said that if they give rupees five lakh, the matter will be over. On the basis of the statements of witnesses, the complainant has requested to summon said Ramprakash as an accused in the said trial under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.