JUDGMENT :

MAYANK KUMAR JAIN, J.

1. Heard Shri Anil Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Prem Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Amrendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Om Prakash Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Bhadohi on the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the informant in Sessions Trial No. 281 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 135 of 2021, under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Bhadohi, district Bhadohi, whereby the learned trial court has summoned the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial with other accused.

3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the first information report are that the informant Akhlaq Ahmad lodged a report at the police station concerned with the averment that he performed the marriage of his daughter Dilkusha Bano with Ashfaq Ahmad on 25th March 2021 according to Muslim rituals. After one week of the marriage, the in-laws started harassing her for dowry. His daughter telephonically informed him about the same based on which the informant went to his daughter’s house and requested her in-laws a lot, but they did not agree. The informant also asked her daughter to tolerate it for a few days presuming that things would be fine. On 15.06.2021 at around 6.00 p.m. the accused Mushtaq Ahmad called on the mobile phone of Toni Mansoori, the son of the informant and asked him to come right away to his home. The informant along with his family members reached the house of his daughter’s in-law. He saw that her dead body was lying on the bed and marks of injury were present on her body. He suspected that the accused persons have committed her murder for dowry.

4. After the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused persons namely Ashfaq Ahmad, Salma, Mustaq Ahmad, Ismat Firdaus and Washeem except for the present revisionist Shoaib Ahmad, who happens to be the brother-in-law (dewar) of the deceased Dilkusha Bano.

5. The Investigating Office during the investigation based on some affidavits received of some persons and after recording the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. concluded that the present revisionist received his education with his maternal uncle Mukhtar Ahmad and at the time of occurrence he was working in the business with his maternal uncle. He was not residing with his family members including the deceased, therefore, no involvement of the revisionist was found in the commission of the crime.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist never made any demand of dowry from the deceased since he had nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute if any. The first information report has wrongly been lodged against the revisionist. The facts mentioned in the FIR are fictitious, untrue and not substantiated with any material evidence. The financial position of the revisionist is very sound, therefore there was no occasion to make any demand for dowry from the deceased by him. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized without dowry. General allegations have been leveled against all the accused persons. During the investigation, no credible evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer against the revisionist and no charge sheet was submitted against him.

7. It is further submitted that the trial court while passing the impugned order has not applied its judicial mind. The application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved against the revisionist in order to further blackmail and harass the family members of the revisionist. The impugned order is contrary to the law. The revision is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist referred to the evidence recorded by the tria