Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra, J.—Case called out but nobody responds for the revisionists.

Learned A.G.A. is present.

2. The notice of the revision was served upon the opposite party No. 2 Karan Singh whereupon he engaged Sri Keshav Sahai as his Advocate.

3. After the death of Sri Keshav Sahai, a fresh notice was issued to the opposite party No. 2 to engage another counsel which was personally served upon him but he did not engage any other counsel.

4. Since, the revision is as much old as that of the year 1988, the same is being disposed of on merits.

In brief, the facts of the case are that Karan Singh filed a complaint case in the Court of Munsif Magistrate-III, Muzaffarnagar, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 2061 of 1988. The complainant alleged that his daughter Geeta was married to the accused Anil, accused No. 1 in the complaint. The accused No. 2 Omwati and accused No. 3 Mahendra are the parents of Anil, accused No. 4 Girdhari Lal is the maternal grand father (Nana) of Anil whereas the accused No. 5 Smt. Usha, wife of Satyaveer Singh, is the sister of Anil. The allegation is that sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage but the in-laws were not satisfied wit