H.R. Panwar, J.- - (1.) By this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 4.10.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 114/2004, by which the revisional court allowed the revision petition filed by complainant-respondent No. 2 Smt. Anita; set-aside the order dated 24.4.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the trial court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 548/2001 and directed the trial court to take cognizance against the present petitioners for the offences under Section 406, 496-A and 323 Indian Penal Code and after procuring their presence by summons, proceed against them also.
(2.) The facts, relevant and necessary for the decision of this criminal revision, in a nut shell, are that complainant-respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint against her husband Bharti Anand and the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 406, 498-A and 323 Indian Penal Code before the trial court and the trial court sent the same to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police filed challan only against Bharti Anand, the husband of the complainant. The trial court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the husband of the complainant and proceeded with the matter. After the evidence of all prosecution witnesses, except the investigating officer, had been recorded, the complainant-respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for impleading and arraigning the petitioners as accused and taking cognizance of the offences against the present petitioners also. After hearing the parties, the trial court, vide order dated 24.4.2004, dismissed the said application and refused to take cognizance of the offences against the present petitioners. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.4.2004 passed by the trial court, the complainant-respondent No.2 preferred a criminal revision petition before the Revisional Court, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 4.10.2004 with the aforesaid directions to the trial court.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the counsel for the complainant. Perused the orders passed by the courts below.;