- (1.) B. K. Rathi, J. This is a revision under Section 397/401, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 9-4-1992 passed by the V Ad ditional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 1991.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are as follows: The petitioner/revisionist is a mar ried wife of Deoraj of No. 1. There was a dispute between them and therefore, the petitioner started living separately. She filed a complaint for offences under Sec tions 406 and 498-A, I. P. C. with the allega tions that the articles of Stridhan given to her at the time of her marriage have not been returned and have been misap propriated by opposite parties No. 1 to 5. That they have also committed an offence under Section 498-A, I. P. C. as they made a demanded for dowry and turned out the applicant from the house for non-payment of dowry. On the complaint opposite par ties No. 1 to 5 were summoned by the Magistrate. Against the summoning order, opposite parties filed Criminal Revision No. 84 of 1991 before the Ses sions Judge, Saharanpur which has been allowed by an order dated 9-4-1992 by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred. Ave heard Sri Raghuraj Kishore, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G. C. Saxena, learned counsel for opposite parties and hAve perused the record.
(3.) THE perusal of the order of the revisional Court shows that the revision has been allowed on a very flimsy ground that the photo copies of the letters of demand only have been filed. That the original letters have not been filed and have not been proved. THE learned Addi tional Sessions Judge overlooked the fact that the evidence was to be led in the Court under Sections 244 and 246, Cr. P. C. THE revisionist therefore, had an opportunity to file the original receipts at the time of evidence. THE photo copies prima facie proved the case and the summoning order could be passed on the basis of the photo copies. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order for insufficient and im proper grounds. There is allegation that the op posite parties have not returned Stridhan and they also made a demand of dowry. These questions of fact can be decided after evidence. Therefore, the revision is fit to be allowed.;