Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) This criminal revision is preferred against judgment and order dated 25/08/2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shahjahanpur, whereby on an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. moved in case No. 1279 of 2016 arising out of case crime No. 187 of 2008 under sections 498-A, 323 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur the revisionists have been summoned to face trial.
(2.) The facts, in brief, as mentioned in the impugned order are that the complainant, Ram Kumar Gautam- opposite party no. 2 moved an application under section 319Cr. P.C. in the aforesaid case with a prayer that he had lodged F.I.R. at PS Kotwali on 20/03/2008, in which due to fear of charge-sheet being filed, the accused had entered into a compromise, where-after his daughter Nootan Gautam had gone to her matrimonial home. There she remained for about 6 months and gave birth to a son. Thereafter when the accused came to know that the police had submitted final report in the matter after investigation, they again had started harassing her daughter for demand of a Scorpio car. Then, the first informant moved a protest petition in Court. The Court, finding the evidence on record to be sufficient against the accused, rejected the final report No.27/2009 on 11/9/2009 and took cognizance against the accused persons under section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. under sections 498 A, 323 IPC and ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, against which the accused persons approached the High Court so that the proceedings could be kept pending for a long time. After commencement of the trial, the statement of complainant was recorded on 12/05/2016 and partly cross-examination was also made. The police/investigating officer had submitted final report against the mother-in-law of his daughter, Kamlesh Gautam and Jethani Dilpreet Gautam. It was stated by him (complainant/first informant) on oath that at the time of marriage on 21/02/2006 Deepak Gautam had made demand of a Scorpio vehicle and had told that ''phere' would take place only when the said vehicle would be provided or its price would be paid. The first informant knelt down to his knees with the request not to do so, but to no avail. Thereafter he arranged Rs.4.00 lakhs somehow from his relatives and rest of the amount that is Rs.4.00 lakh was assured to be given after marriage, then only ''phere' could take place. Immediately 4-5 days after marriage, his daughter had been started to be tortured by these persons, which comprised her mother-in-law Kamalesh Gautam- revisionist no. 1, Jeth Deepak Gautam-revisionist no. 2 and Jethani Dilpreet and her husband Prakash Gautam and father-in-law Ram Mohan Gautam. During pendency of the case, Ram Mohan Gautam expired. The first application moved under section 319 Cr.P.C. was not pressed by him because talks of compromise were made, but when the accused side refused to compromise, he had to move the second application under section 319 Cr.P.C. with a prayer that Smt. Kamalesh Gautam, Deepak Gautam and Smt. Dilpreet be summoned to face trial.
(3.) In the objection against the said application, from the side of revisionists it was submitted that an application under section 319 Cr. P.C. was not maintainable and that the complainant/first informant did not have right to move the same. Such an application was permissible to be moved only during investigation on trial when there was sufficient evidence against accused on record. The complainant was examined only partly as he was yet to be cross-examined. His daughter's evidence had not been recorded. The police had submitted final report in 2009, against which protest petition was presented, and the accused were summoned vide court's order dated 06/02/2010 on the basis of evidence on record, in which the Court had not taken cognizance against the revisionists as there was no sufficient evidence against them. There was no such evidence on record, on the basis of which, the revisionists could be summoned as accused on an application under section 319 Cr. P.C.. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that the Court would have to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence against the proposed accused or not. There were contradictions in the statement of complainant and his daughter with regard to demand of a Scorpio car as well as Rs.4.00 lakh. Deepak Gautam and Dilpreet Gautam are Canadian Citizen and Kamalesh Gautam is permanent citizen of Canada. The said application was moved with a view to keeping the trial pending for long, hence the same deserved to be dismissed.;