VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Shivendra Raj Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the state. None present for the opposite party no. 2.

(2.) The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C . has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 695 of 2014 (Vinod Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and the order dated 08.07.2014 passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the applicants under Sections 498-A , 323 , 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Aligarh in case no. 1920 of 2012 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Aligarh.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that in this matter husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 are facing trial on the basis of charge sheet filed against them. One application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved to summon the applicants to face trial but same was rejected. Thereafter, after examination of two prosecution witnesses, another application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved, which was allowed vide order dated 08.07.2014 and applicants were summoned to face trial. The said order was challenged through the criminal revision, which was dismissed on insufficient ground. Referring to the FIR and statement of the witnesses recorded during trial, it is also argued that general allegations have been levelled against the applicants. Applicant no. 1 Vinod Kumar is the Jeth whereas applicant no. 2 Smt. Rashmi is Jethani. They are living at their work place as applicant no. 1 is an Army man. It appears improbable and unbelievable that they would have raised the demand of additional dowry said to have been made in the matter. There is no nexus between the applicants and the demand said to have been made in the present matter. It is further submitted that if entire prosecution case is taken into consideration then also co-accused against whom charge sheet was filed may be benefited with the alleged demand. Applicants, who are living at their work place, could not be benefited in any way with the said demand. It is further submitted that applicants have been involved in this matter only on account of family members of the husband of opposite party no. 2. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Eicher Tractors Ltd. Vs. Harihar Singh, 2008 LawSuit(SC) 1643.