Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 602 of 2019
Revisionist :- Smt. Bhawana @ Sapana Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Alok Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Certified copy of the summoning order filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
The present revision has been filed by the revisionist with the prayer to set aside the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-VIIIth, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 203 of 2018 (Prem Singh and another Vs. Smt. Bhawana @ Sapana and another), under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station New Agra, District Agra.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that vide order dated 27.03.2018, opposite party nos. 2 & 3 were summoned to face the trial along with husband. A criminal revision was filed by the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 before the Sessions Judge concerned, which was allowed and summoning order passed in respect of opposite party nos. 2 & 3 on 27.03.2018 was set aside. It is further submitted that in the complaint as well as in the statement recorded on the complaint, specific allegations were made against the opposite party nos. 2 & 3. They have also caused cruelty and harassment to the applicant and were also involved in raising the demand. Order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the lower revisional court allowing the revision is illegal.
On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, summoning order was challenged through the criminal revision No. 203 of 2018 before the Sessions Judge concerned, court below allowed the revision relying the case laws in Sidhan Vs. Stte of Kerala, 1986 Cr.LJ 476A, Pepsi Friends Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998)5 SCC 749, M/s GHCL Specialize Stock of Exchange Trust Vs. Messors India Info Line Ltd. AIR SC 1433, Maksood Vs. State of Gujrat (2008)5 SCC 668, Jagnarayan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others (2009) 66 SCC 86, Dharival Twakko Products Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009, SCC 032, Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand (2010)7 SCC 2010, Indal Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashra, 2007(12) SCC, Smt. Rajrani Vs. State of Delhi, AIR (2000) SC 3559 and Ramesh Vs. State of Tamilnadu, (2005) SCC 735. If the summoning order passed in respect of opposite party nos. 2 & 3 is compared with the allegation levelled in the complaint against them as also in the statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in consonance with the observations recorded by the lower revisional court, no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned order. Address of the applicants and her husband is different with the address of opposite party nos. 2 & 3. There was general allegation against the opposite party nos. 2 & 3. If such is the position, impugned order passed by the lower revisional court cannot be termed to be illegal. No interference is required in the impugned order by this Court. Revision being devoid of merits is not liable to be admitted and allowed.
Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed at this stage itself.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Sanjeet