- (1.) The revisionists Arun Kumar Sharma and seven others have preferred this criminal revision against the order dated 15.6.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj in Complaint Case No. 2603 of 2003 (Munshi Lal vs. Arun Kumar) whereby the revisionists have been summoned under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 2/3 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in pursuance of remand order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kannauj in Criminal Revision No. 22/14/2002 (Munshi Lal vs. State of U.P. and 7 others).
(2.) The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this revision are that complaint was filed with the allegation that marriage of the revisionist no. 1 Arun Kumar Sharma was solemnized with the daughter of opposite party no. 2 according to Hindu rites and rituals. As per status, sufficient dowry was given but the husband and in-laws were not satisfied with this dowry and used to harass his daughter by raising demand of motorcycle and fridge in dowry. On non-fulfillment of dowry, they poured kerosene oil on his daughter and obtained signature from his daughter on a blank paper. They also extended threat to cause death of his daughter. The husband and in-laws ousted his daughter after doing Marpeet. On receiving information, he fetched her daughter from in-laws' house to Bharapur and got medically examined of his daughter. After hearing the complainant and perusing the statement under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannuaj comes to the conclusion that there is no sufficient material to proceed against the revisionists and, therefore, the complaint was rejected under section 203 Cr.P.C. against which revision was filed by the complainant. The Revisional Court allowed the revision assuming the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to summon the revisionists under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 2/3 Dowry Prohibition Act. In compliance of the order of the Revisional Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj proceeded further with the case and summoned the revisionists to face trial. Feeling aggrieved, revisionists came up before this Court in this revision.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the summoning order was passed in a mechanical way without applying his mind because the learned Magistrate at the first instance when the complaint was filed before him and the statement was recorded of the complainant and in support other witnesses came to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out with the result that complaint was rejected under section 203 Cr.P.C against which revision was filed. The Special Judge in revision assumed the jurisdiction of the Trial Court and issued direction to summon the revisionists under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 2/3 Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that revisionists have neither demanded dowry nor subjected to cruelty or torture for demand of dowry. The Special Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the Trial Court to summon the accused instead of remanding the case with the direction to pass an appropriate order in the light of reasoning given in the body of the judgement. It is also submitted that entire family members including father, mother, brother, sister have been falsely implicated even the relative Fufa, has no concern at all, has been made accused in this case whereas no specific role has been assigned to them.;