- (1.) MRS. Saroj Bala, J. By means of this application moved under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the applicant prays for quashing the order dated 30. 7. 2002 / passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 15, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 97 of 2002 whereby affirming the order dated 21. 3. 2002 passed by the Spe cial Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Criminal Case No. 2743 of 1998, State v. Chitranjan Gaur and others and dismissing the application under Section 319, Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to these proceedings are: THE applicant was married to the brother of opposite party No. 2 on 25. 1,1996. THE F. I. R. was lodged by the applicant on 17. 5. 98 alleging that soon after the marriage her mother-in-law started taunting and abusing her for not bringing Yamaha motorcycle, solid silver and gold ornaments and utensils. She tolerated their inhuman behaviour for her family honour. It was alleged that she was subjected to ( assault by the opposite party No. 2 sister-in-law and father-in-law when she pro tested for their inhuman behaviour. Her husband went out of country obtaining passport showing himself as a bachelor and the house in which her husband and. family members resided was sold. On 12. 5. 98 at about 7 P. M. the applicant was subjected to assault and turned out of the marital home. Stridhan and other valu able articles were fraudulently and dishonestly misappropriated by the father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law and cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406,504,506, IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. THE trial commenced against the co-accused. THE witnesses Shri Niwas Pathak (P. W. 1) father of applicant and Minakshi Gaur (P. W. 2), the applicant were examined by the prosecution. THE applicant in her deposition stated that she was subjected to assault by father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law when their demand of dowry was not satisfied and her sister-in-law used to call her a bitch. An application under Section 319, Cr. P. C, was moved by the applicant for summoning the opposite party No. 2 as an accused to face trial alongwith co-accused. THE application was rejected by the trial Court by an order dated 21. 3. 2002. THE revision preferred against the said order was dismissed. The impugned orders have been challenged on the grounds that the Courts below failed to consider that the opposite party was named in the FIR and the applicant in her deposition made allegations of demand of dowry and harassment against her. According to the applicant there was sufficient evidence for taking cognizance against the opposite party and her application was wrongly rejected. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Goswami, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, learned A. GA. and have perused the record.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the opposite party is named in the F. I. R. and allegations of demand of dowry and harassment have been made against her in the F. I. R. and evidence of applicant (P. W. 2 ). An order summoning a person can be made on fulfilment of the conditions stipulated under Section 319, Cr. P. C. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that in the F. I. R. general allegations of subjecting the applicant to assault have been made. The opposite party was married on 16. 11. 97 and at that time her husband resided at Delhi and from Delhi he came to Allahabad on transfer with family including the opposite party. The incident is said to have taken place on 12. 5j. 98 and at that time the opposite party resided separately with her husband. It was urged that the state ment of applicant (P. W. 2) was recorded in the year 2001 and no allegations of demand of dowry and misappropriation of Stridhan have been made against her. The marriage of applicant with the brother of opposite party has been dissolved by a decree of divorce. There is no medical report of applicant.;