DHAKELI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27th February, 2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridabad (for brevity 'trial Court'), whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel that the learned trial Court fell in error in not appreciating that the complainant/petitioner while deposing before the Court as a prosecution witness had specifically named the private respondents, Vinod and Laxmi @ Anju and had levelled allegations of harassment qua them. Hence, the learned trial Court ought to have summoned the private respondents to face the trial.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents on that contrary submitted that on the face of it, it was clearly discernible that the complainant was trying to falsely implicate both the respondents even though both of them had been residing at Delhi much before the marriage of the daughter of the complainant with the co-accused and had in fact never ever resided at House No. Q-387, AC Nagar, Faridabad, where allegedly the occurrence took place. Hence, it was submitted that the investigating agency had rightly, in the absence of any cogent and reliable material, during their investigation, placed both the respondents in column No. 2.