- (1.) Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.
(2.) By means of the present revision, the revisionist is challenging the order passed by the XIth Additional Sessions Judge, who in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has summoned Smt. Geeta Devi w/o Raju(non-accused) to face the trial in Sessions Trial No.581 of 2015 along with other co-accused.
(3.) Submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the informant-Ramendra Pal Singh moved an application 12-Kha invoking the powers of Section 319 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that the accused persons Chotey Lal, Nanhe Singh, Bitola Devi, Raju and Geeta Devi(non-accused person) may be summoned to face the trial but while allowing the aforementioned application in part, only Smt. Geeta Devi w/o Raju was summoned but for the rest of the accused, same was rejected. Submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist is that Smt. Geeta Devi was wrongly summoned by the learned trial Court on the following main grounds :- (i) First informant gave an affidavit to S.S.P. attributing the bad habits of his son-in-law. (ii) First informant blamed himself for tutoring her deceased daughter to give her dying declaration. (iii) The impugned order is based on conjectures and surmises without any supporting material. (iv) There is no strong and cogent evidence against the revisionist prompting the trial Judge to exercise his power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and only passed in casual and cavalier manner. Brief facts of the case;