JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J.

The challenge in the present petition is to the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Charkhi Dadri, whereby the Revisional Court has allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant for summoning the present petitioners as accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C..

2. Brief factual matrix of the present petition is that the petitioner No.1 is the father-in-law, petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law of respondent No.2. The marriage of the respondent No.2 was solemnized with the son of the petitioners No.1 and 2 on 07.02.2005, whereafter, it is alleged that she was subjected to harassment and beatings for the demand of dowry and was thrown out of the matrimonial home, leading her to file a complaint against six persons. The FIR No.224 dated 07.06.2016 was then lodged and investigation carried out, in which five accused included the present petitioners were found innocent and challan was presented only against the husband of respondent No.2. During the course of trial, an application for summoning the petitioners and two other proposed accused was moved which was dismissed by the trial Court on 09.11.2023. A revision petition was then preferred by respondent No.2, whereinunder the said order was set aside and summoning of the petitioners was allowed vide impugned order dated 26.02.2024. Aggrieved from the same, the present petition has been moved.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with the son of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 07.02.2005. Since the year 2006, the petitioners are residing separately, as can be evinced from the ration card of the respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the complaint was filed by respondent No.2 in the year 2016 i.e. 11 years after her marriage was solemnized, and that no specific instances or time of incidents have been mentioned in the allegations levelled against the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that since no prima facie allegations were made out against the petitioners, they were exonerated during investigation and challan was presented only against the husband of respondent No.2. She submits that the impugned order of issuing process against the petitioners is sheer abuse of law, and that even the learned trial Court vide order dated 09.11.2023 had correctly rejected the application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was later wrongfully set aside by the Revisional Court vide the impugned order.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the prayer made in the present petition by contending that the impugned order was rightly passed by the Revisional Court after due appreciation of the evidence. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contends that the petitioners were named and specific roles and allegations were attributed to each one of them by respondent No.2 in the FIR, in her statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in her deposition before the Illaqa Magistrate, and it was only after a careful consideration of the material on record that the petitioners were summoned, thereby warranting no interference by this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the paper book.

6. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to discuss the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in some of its recent judgements. Discussing the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) has laid down that:

"105. Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent e