Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and learned AGA for respondent No. 1. None present for revisionists, so the impugned judgment and order was perused. It appears that an FIR was lodged by Abdul Wahid in police station Khurja, District Bulandshahr, under Sections 498 -A, 323, 504, 506, 304 -B IPC and Section 3 / 4 D.P. Act regarding death of his daughter Nigar Parveen by her matrimonial relation for demand of dowry. The investigating officer, after investigation, submitted charge -sheet only against Zaheer @ Chhotey and Mugirul under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 / 4 D.P. Act. He found that Reshma and Zeenat were wrongly implicated. He found that these are married nanad of the deceased. Reshma lives in Gangdundwara and Zeenat is living in Khurja alongwith their family. After framing of charge, P.W. 1 Abdul Wahid was examined and after his examination -in -chief, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Was moved to summon Smt. Reshma and Zeenat to face the trial. Learned Court below after hearing the prosecution, summoned Smt. Reshma and Zeenat to face trial under Section 498 -A, 304 -B IPC and Section 3 / 4 D.P. Act. by the impugned order, against which this criminal revision has been preferred.
(2.) AS the revisionist is not present and was not heard, so it is necessary to reiterate his grounds of revision. It has been mentioned in the ground of revision that Zahir @ Chhote was living with his wife separately in a rented house in Mohalla Saraimurtja, P.S. Kotwali Khurja, District Bulandshahr, in a rented house no other family members were living with her child and her husband. Applicant No. 1 Smt. Zeenat was living with her husband in house No. 107, Khurja, District Bulandshahr for last 20 years and her husband is a teacher in an Intermediate College in Khurja and she has no concern with Zahir. Revisionist No. 2 Smt. Reshma is married with Rashid and living at village Ganeshpur, P.S. Ganj Dundwara, District Etah at the time of incident. The dead body was found in rented room of Iqubaluddin on the 1st floor. In the post -mortem examination report, a ligature mark with a gap of 3.5 cm. on right side of neck was found and it clearly shows that she has committed suicide. Both the revisionists lived at different places, so there was no question of demand of dowry or torture by the revisionists. There was no material against the revisionists in respect of any torture or demand of dowry by them, since both revisionists are living with her husband for last several years in different places. Learned counsel for the respondent arguments is that the order passed by the lower Court is correct as from the evidence or record, he found prima facie case for summoning the revisionist to face trial. In Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, : (1979) 1 SCC 345, the Apex Court while dealing with the ambit and scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C., held that the Court has power to add any person as accused, if there is sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence.
(3.) IN Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, : 1983 (1) SCC 1, the Apex Court after referring to the decision of Joginder Singh's case (supra) observed that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, which should be used very sparingly only, if compelling reasons exists for taking cognizance against the other person against whom some action has not been taken.;