Vijay Bishnoi, J. - (1.) BY this criminal misc. petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dt. 18.1.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as "revisional Court") whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners have been dismissed while affirming the order dt. 20.11.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Sadulshahar, District Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') of summoning the petitioner for facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 498A & 323 I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that on 2.3.2004 an FIR No. 35/2004 was lodged at the Police Station Lalgarh on the basis of a report submitted by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners and Madan Lal, (husband of the respondent No. 2) for the offences punishable under Secs. 406 & 498A I.P.C. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against Madan Lal for the offence punishable under Secs. 406 and 498A I.P.C. while concluding that there is no evidence of commission of alleged offences by the petitioners. The matter was proceeded for trial against the accused Madan Lal and during the course of trial, the statements of respondent No. 2 and her brother Raja Ram were recorded. After that an application was moved on behalf of Additional Prosecutor before the learned trial Court under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners for facing trial for the offences punishable under Secs. 498A and 323 I.P.C. and the said application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dt. 20.11.2007 and the petitioners were summoned through bailable warrant for facing trial for the offence punishable under Secs. 498A and 323 I.P.C. along with the accused Madan Lal.
(2.) BEING aggrieved with the order dt. 20.11.2007, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the revisional Court, however, the said revision petition was dismissed by the revisional Court vide order dt. 18.1.2012. Hence, the petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that during the investigation of the case, the police had already concluded that the accused Madan Lal was living separately from the petitioners and it has come in the investigation that the petitioner No. 1 is living with petitioners No. 2 and 3 and the petitioner No. 4 is living along with her husband in a different village and the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the respondent No. 2 in the FIR. The learned counsel for petitioner further stated that the petitioner No. 1 is about 82 years of age and is confined to bed and if at this stage she will be put to trial, it will be a great hardship for her and her family. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated that the learned Magistrate while exercising powers under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. is required to act judiciously and not in mechanical manner. The power envisaged under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. are discretionary in nature and it is always not binding upon the Magistrate to summon any person as and when any application is moved under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further urged that the respondent No. 2 has falsely implicated all the family members of her husband though the petitioners are not at all involved in any manner. It is further urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that from perusal of statements of respondent No. 2 (PW 1) and statement of his brother Raja Ram (PW 2), it is clear that only general allegations qua the petitioners have been levelled and no specific role is assigned to any of the petitioners. On the strength of above arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners has prayed that the order of summoning the petitioners passed by the learned trial Court while exercising powers under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has also argued that in the present case, the respondent No. 2 and accused Madan Lal have entered into a compromise on 16.9.2006 wherein the accused Madan Lal agreed that he will keep the complainant and children with him and will also transfer 3/4 share of 18 bighas and 15 biswas of agricultural land owned by him in favour of respondent No. 2 and her children subject to condition that the respondent No. 2 will withdraw the prosecution which she initiated against accused Madan Lal. It is stated that later on the respondent No. 2 has not withdrawn the prosecution and, therefore, the compromise entered into between the accused Madan Lal and respondent No. 2 on 16.9.2006 has not been executed. However, the respondent No. 2 has thereafter filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Pilibanga against the accused Madan Lal for the offence punishable under Secs. 420, 120B, 452, 354, 447, 147, 148 and 149 of the I.P.C. while alleging that despite a compromise entered into between her and the accused Madan Lal, he had not transferred the agricultural land in favour of her as per the compromise. On the said complaint, the police registered an FIR No. 235/2010 and after investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Secs. 420 and 406 I.P.C.;