JUDGMENT :

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionists is taken on record.

2. Heard, Sri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/first informant.

3. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No.1, Etawah in Criminal Case No.623 of 2012 (State Vs. Balram and others) arising out of Case Crime No.633 of 2009, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bharthana, District Etawah. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on application of first informant/ prosecution has summoned the revisionists to face trial with co-accused for offence under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C.

4. The opposite party no.2 i.e. Anuj Kumar lodged an F.I.R. on 27.12.2009 at 9 a.m. alleging therein that on 27.12.2009 at about 7 a.m. Ram Sakhi Devi, the mother and Pramod Kumar, the brother of the complainant were collecting cow dungs then Balram Singh, Smt. Gopshree, Ruby and Reena started scuffle with the mother and brother of the complainant and they assaulted them causing head injury to his mother, her left hand was also fractured, bleeding started from her head. The left hand of Pramod Kumar was also fractured. Omkar Singh and Rukum Singh saved her. The accused persons fled from the spot abusing and extending life threat. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against Balram Singh and Smt. Gopshree. The revisionists, Rubi and Reena were exonerated. During trial, after examination of Anuj Kumar as P.W.1 and Ram Sakhi as P.W.2, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the prosecution which has been allowed by the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that there are general allegations in the F.I.R. and no specific role has been assigned to the revisionists-accused. All the members of the family have been implicated whereas no specific role has been assigned to anyone. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of independent witnesses who have stated that both the girls (revisionists) were school going and had gone to attend the school. After considering the witnesses and other evidence, the Investigating Officer has come to the conclusion that the involvement of the revisionists was not found, therefore, they were exonerated from the charge-sheet. It is further contended that injured, Ram Sakhi/ P.W.2 has suffered one lacerated wound on forehead, one contusion on right arm and one lacerated wound on wrist joint. In her X-ray report, fracture of right arm has been detected. The other injured, Pramod Kumar has suffered one lacerated wound, one contusion and one abrasion. His X-ray report is NAD. Therefore, the allegations of the F.I.R. are totally false and concocted. It is further contended that complainant, Anuj Kumar/P.W.1 is not an eye-witness of the incident, he has not stated anything about the involvement of the revisionists-accused in the F.I.R. The learned Magistrate only on the statement of Ram Sakhi/ P.W.2 has summoned the revisionists in a mechanical manner. At the time of incident, the revisionists were minor and as per High School Certificate-cum-Marksheet, the date of birth of revisionist no.1 is 10.08.1996 and as per High School Marksheet, the date of birth of revisionist no.2 is 11.10.1993. The application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been moved with malafide intention only to disturb the matrimonial lives of revisionists who are now married. It is also contended that the impugned order is against the evidence and materials available on record. The learned trial Court has committed manifest illegalities which is apparent on the face of the record. It is also contended that the Apex Court in so many cases has held that power to summon under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power which should be exercised in exception