Naheed Ara Moonis, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the revisionists, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) A prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 26.9.2011, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot has passed the order on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in case No. 1197/ix/2010, State Vs. Raghvendra Singh & others, summoning the revisionists under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in case crime No. 96 of 2008, P.S. Mau, District Chitrakoot. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists is that the revisionist No. 1 is the brother in law and revisionist No. 2 is his wife and revisionist No. 3 is the sister in law of the opposite party No. 2. A first information report was lodged on 23.12.2008 that the revisionists and other in -laws of the opposite party No. 2 had tortured her on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry. The revisionists are said to have been instructed by the husband to demand a car from the parents of the opposite party No. 2 and she was ill treated by all the in -laws of the family, they had brutally treated her and ousted her from her matrimonial house. The case was registered under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act as case crime No. 96 of 2008. After lodging of the report police came in action and after investigation the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer only against the husband, father in law and mother in law, while exonerating the revisionists. After cognizance the charges were framed and the case was put for trial and the statements of the opposite party No. 2 and her father and mother were recorded, on the basis of which the complicity of the revisionists were found, and as such an application was moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The court below on the basis of the statements of the complainant and witnesses, arrived at the conclusion that prima facie offence is made out against the revisionists.
(3.) IT is further contended that the revisionists are residing separately and they have nothing to do with the demand of dowry as alleged in the first information report, as such summoning order passed is unjust, illegal and is liable to be quashed.;