The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. and the court's discretion to summon accused persons based on the pre-charge evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Niranjan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mrs. Sweta Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-state.

3. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

4. This criminal revision has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 06.10.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Bermo at Tenughat so far it relates to the present petitioners whereby the petitioners have been arrayed as accused and the order under section 319 of Cr.P.C. refusing to array them as accused has been set-aside to the extent it relates to the petitioners.

5. The complainant had filed a petition before the learned trial court under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. in order to make three persons as accused in the case which was rejected vide order dated 06.10.2018 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Complaint Case No. 205 of 2006 corresponding to T.R. No. 1212 of 2006. The complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2013 which was allowed with respect to the present two petitioners who are sister-in-law and brother-in-law (husband of sister-in-law) of the victim lady and dismissed with respect to the 3rd proposed accused. The aforesaid complaint case is said to be pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat.

6. Learned counsel submits that a petition under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. was filed before the learned trial court which was rejected vide order dated 26.06.2013, against which the complainant filed Cr. Revision No. 154 of 2013 which has been allowed to the extent it relates to the present petitioners i.e. Tultul Mukherjee and Jayant Mukherjee who are sister-in-law (nanad) and brother-in-law (nandoi) respectively of the complainant wife.

7. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order passed in Cr. Revision No. 154 of 2013 is ex-facie perverse and the therefore same is fit to be set aside so far it relates to the petitioners.

Learned counsel submits that so far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, there is no iota of evidence as against him to rope him in the criminal case. Learned counsel submits that pre-charge evidence of the complainant has been filed along with the second supplementary affidavit and has submitted that there is contradiction in the pre-charge evidence of the brother of the complainant i.e. Pradeep Kumar Goswami and Pratima Goswami, who is mother of the complainant and no specific allegation has been made as per the deposition so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-state on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is a well-reasoned order considering the pre-charge evidence of the complaint witnesses. She has in particular referred to the evidence of the victim- the complainant. She has submitted that specific statement has been made that at the time of marriage, cash as well as other articles were given and present petitioners were residing in the matrimonial house of the complainant. The complainant was permitted to live in her matrimonial house after the demand of Rs.1 lacs and a Maruti Car was fulfilled by her brother to some extent. The complainant became pregnant in 2003 and it has been alleged that her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law used to torture her and also kicked her on her womb and thereafter considering that harm may not cause to her womb, she called her brother and went to her parents’ house and subsequently she gave birth to a boy child. The learned counsel for the state has also submitted that the complainant has further stated in her evidence that present petitioners had also taken part in throwing the new born child on the floor and ultimately the child had expired. The learned counsel for the state submits that there was enough mater