- (1.)This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., against the order dated 17.1.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 21/2008, whereby he has summoned the accused petitioners. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
That in an incident which took place on 22.3.2008 a First Information Report was lodged which was registered at Police Station Mathura Gate as FIR No. 179/2008 for the offence under Section 304B IPC. After investigation challan was filed for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions whereby charge was framed only against Vinod Kumar under Section 304-B IPC which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During the course of evidence trial, the prosecution examined witnesses Chauhal Singh (PW/1), Heeraman (PW/2), Puran Singh (PW/3), Pratap Singh (PW/4), Uday Singh (PW/5), Bhagwandai (PW/6) and Hardev (PW. 13). After examination of the above-named witnesses, the complainant/respondent preferred an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., before the learned trial Court. Previously also, application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant after recording the statements of Chauhal Singh (PW/1), Heeraman (PW/2), Puran Singh (PW/3), and Pratap Singh (PW/4) but the same was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 29.4.2009. After that the complainant has challenged the order dated 28.4.2009 and on 13.9.2011, this Court has passed the following order:

This Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., against the order dated 28.4.2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bharatpur whereby the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., filed by the complainant was dismissed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner only prays to this Court that while rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the judgment of the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2009 16 SCC 785 was not considered. The learned counsel in these circumstances sates that this court may direct the trial court to consider the above mentioned judgment of the Apex Court. If the petitioner moves an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the same should be decided in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2009 16 SCC 785.

For these reasons, the misc. petition is disposed of with the above directions. The stay application also stands disposed of.

(2.)After the evidence was concluded, the complainant has moved an application before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides decided the said application and summoned the petitioner by the order impugned on 17.1.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved this revision petition for quashing of the order dated 17.1.2012 by which he was summoned for the aforesaid offence.
(3.)The learned counsel Mr. Anurag Sharma has contended that the order passed by the court below is patently illegal, improper and unjust. He has further submitted that the court below has acted illegally and with material irregularity by which he has allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., filed by the complainant. He has further submitted that it is apparent from the FIR as well as the statements of Chauhal Singh (PW. 1), Heeraman (PW. 2) and Pratap Singh (PW. 4) that they have given the improved version vis--vis their statements recorded before the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein demand of dowry by current petitioners was not made, hence they have implicated the petitioners falsely. He has further submitted that while the court below is considering the evidence of the witnesses from PW. 1 to PW. 15, it has failed to consider the judgment cited by the petitioners before it in 2008 Cr. L.J., 1914 (SC). He has further contended that the court below while allowing the application of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has acted in a mechanical manner by not considering nor appreciating the evidence of the witnesses available on record.