The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the degree of satisfaction required for summoning an accused during the course of inquiry or trial.

Ravindra Nath Kakkar, J.

In compliance of the previous order written notice has been sent to the counsel for the opposite party no. 2 whose name is printed in the cause list but no one has appeared and no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 4.5.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge ( Court No. 2), Firozabad, rejecting the order dated 23.7.2012 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Firozabad by which the opposite party no. 2 Smt. Meera was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face trial Under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 IPC with other accused persons in Case No. 1362 of 2012, State of U.P. Vs. Deepak and Others, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-Ist, Firozabad.

3. Facts, in brief, are that initially on the basis of an information to the police station a case under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC was registered as NCR No. 91 of 2009 which was later on converted into Crime No. 345 of 2009. Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the co-accused Deepak and Awdhesh under Sections 323, 326, 504 and 506 IPC. During trial statement of informant PW1 Jai Kishore and PW2 Smt. Preeti were recorded and they have clearly stated the role and involvement of opposite party no. 2. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. moved before the trial court for summoning opposite party no. 2 Smt. Meera as an accused which was allowed by A.C.J.M.-Ist, Firozabad and opposite party no. 2 Smt. Meera was summoned for facing trial under Sections 323, 326, 504 and 506 IPC.

4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order a revision was preferred before Additional Sessions Judge, Firozabad and the same was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Firozabad by order dated 4.5.2013, which is under challenge before this Court.

5. As per prosecution on 13.8.2009 at about 08: 00 AM when Smt. Preeti Devi wife of complainant was going towards her field, accused Deepak obstructed her way, abused her and thereafter accused Deepak, Avdhesh and Meera at about 12:00 O'clock had beaten the complainant Jai Kishore, husband of Smt. Preeti with lathi and danda and accused Deepak caused teeth bite on the left hand of complainant Jai Kishore. The incident was witnessed by the neighbours of the complainant and thereafter accused left the place of occurrence by threatening the complainant and his wife to kill them.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist made submissions before this Court that the impugned order dated 4.5.2013 is unjust, improper, against the evidence available on records and totally based on surmises and conjectures. He further contended that there is specific allegations against all the accused persons including opposite party no. 2 Smt. Meera in the NCR dated 13.8.2009, lodged by the revisionist and the same was also corroborated by the statement of other witnesses but the Investigating Officer had not chargesheeted the name of opposite party no. 2 Meera in the charge sheet with an ulterior motive. It is further submitted that PW1 Jai Kishore and PW2 Smt. Preeti in their statement recorded before the trial court clearly stated the role and involvement of opposite party no. 2 Meera but the revisional court erroneously rejected the summoning order passed by the trial court. It is further submitted that injury report is also in favour of the prosecution. It is further submitted that revisional court had rejected the summoning order in arbitrary manner which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 4.5.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Firozabad.

7. To the contrary learned A.G.A. has made submissions that the impugned order is a reasoned order and the learned Additional Sessions Judge after perusal of the record has come to the conclusion that there is no sufficient evidence to summon the proposed accused opposite party no. 2 Smt. Meera. It is next submitted