JUDGMENT :

[Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J.]

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 10.8.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 2, Azamgarh in S.T. No. 126 of 2018 (State Vs. Shashi Kant) Case Crime No. 367 of 2017, P.S. Kotwali, District Azamgarh. By the impugned order the learned trial court on an application of the prosecution, exercising powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. has summoned the revisionists-accused for trial.

3. The O.P. No. 2 lodged an FIR on 18.7.2017 alleging therein that the marriage of his daughter Hemlata was solemnized with Shashikant on 19.5.2015 and on the demand of in-laws Rs. 3 lac cash, one motorcycle, golden ring and various household articles were given in dowry but her husband Shashikant, parents-in-law Ram Asrey Chaudhary, Neelam Chaudhary and Devar Raja Chaudhary were not satisfied with the dowry and used to harass and torture her. They were demanding one golden chain and one lac cash as additional dowry and were threatening to oust her. They ousted her from their house after eight days of delivery. His daughter told him the entire facts on telephone and relative of the complainant kept her and got her treated. Thereafter, the complainant came and took her to Mumbai and got her treatment. After counselling he sent his daughter to her in-laws house but the accused persons again started to abuse and torture her. Yesterday on 16.7.2017 he came to know that his daughter has been burnt and killed. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted only against Shashikant, husband of the deceased. Investigating Officer exonerated the remaining named accused persons in the FIR on the ground that no evidence is found against them. During course of trial Rambhawati Kannojiya, P.W.1 mother of the deceased and complainant Pancham Kannojiya, P.W. 2 were examined. The prosecution moved an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the other accused persons named in the FIR namely Ram Asrey Chaudhary, Neelam Chaudhary and Raja Chaudhary. The learned trial court by the impugned order has allowed the aforesaid application and summoned them.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that revisionists are innocent and have been falsely implicated. The O.P. No. 2 with malafide intention and ulterior motive moved application under section 319 Cr.P.C. on false and frivolous grounds only to harass them. Learned trial court while passing the impugned order has not considered the established principle of law that the power conferred under section 319 Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a routine manner and it should be used very sparingly and only if evidence has come on record which sufficiently establishes that the persons have committed the offence. Mere doubt about the involvement of the other persons on the basis of evidence led before the trial court is not enough to summon them under section 319 Cr.P.C. The power conferred under section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extra-ordinary power and should be used very sparingly. It may be exercised only if compelling reasons exist. Some positive evidence must have to be there and that evidence should point to the specific guilt of the persons to be proceeded against. The learned trial court has failed to exercise its power in a judicious manner and wrongly and illegally summoned the revisionists-accused without cogent and credible evidence. The impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner. It is further contended that deceased was suffering from mental agony and was under treatment which is clearly established from the medical documents. The revisionist no. 2 was on duty at the time of incident while revisionist no. 3 is Devar of the deceased and he is studying in B.A. final year. He has no concern with the deceased as well as her husband Shashikant in their day-to-day affairs. Learned counsel placed reliance on the follow