Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State Respondent.
(2.) THE present 482, Code of Criminal Procedure application has been filed for quashing of the summoning order dated 30.04.2011 passed in S.T. No. 1433 of 2009, under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Bulandshahr, whereby the applicants have been summoned under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure to face the trial under the charged sections. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the first information report was lodged against the applicants and other accused persons and after investigation, the Investigating agency found complicity of the applicants to be false and, therefore, exonerated them and submitted charge sheet against other accused persons, as such, order impugned dated 30.04.2011 be set aside insofar as the applicants are concerned.
(3.) IN support of his contention learned Counsel for the applicants has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarabjit Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in, (2010) 2 SCC 141, in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 'an order under Section 319, should not be passed only because first informant or one of the witnesses seeks to implicate other persons(s) -sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by court so as to satisfy ingredients of Section 319.' 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in, (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 355, in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 'power under Section 319 can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned in all likelihood would be convicted.';