The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court to exercise the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. sparingly and the requirement of strong and cogent evidence against the proposed accused persons. The judgment emphasized the need for evidence recorded during trial to summon accused persons under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 5, Sri Ramesh Chand Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. By means of present criminal revision revisionist, who is informant in S.T No. 10 of 2020 (State Vs. Sanjay Pathak) arising out of case crime No. 405 of 2019, under sections 498-A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.-Panki, District-Kanpur Nagar, has assailed the impugned order dated 10.06.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. Court No. 1 Etawah, whereby applicant moved an application 30 KH for summoning of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanad) of the decreased as section 319 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. The factual matrix of the case in brief are that an F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of informant Satish Chaubey at P.S. Panki, District-Kanpur Nagar on 8.10.2019 with averment that he had married his daughter Priyam @ Divya Pathak with accused Sanjay Pathak on 3.12.2016, in which he spent around rupees 15 lakh up to his capacity, but when she came back after sometime of marriage to the place of the informant, she told that her in-laws are very greedy people, they used to tease her for bringing less dowry. He consoled his daughter that in course of time things will get improve, but his daughter used to inform him that she is being subjected to torture by her husband and in-laws, her sister-in-law, Bittu Tiwari is very interfereing with regard to bringing of dowry. He would console his daughter that she should keep patience, things will get right. On 05.10.2019, his daughter telephoned him that her husband Sanjay Pathak, mother-in-law, Kanchan Pathak, father-in-law Devi Dyal are engaged in maar peet with her. He could not rush to the place of her daughter due to busyness. On the next day, he tried to communicate with his daughter telephonically but phone could not be connected. On same day at around 6:00 P.M., he received information that his daughter had died. The F.I.R. was lodged after 2 days of the incident. Additional City Magistrate, III conducted inquest on dead body of the deceased on 07.10.2019 at the place of the incident in presence of police and punch witnesses. In inquest report, fresh marks of friction were found on neck of the deceased, in the opinion of Panch witnesses, the deceased died on 6.10.2019 by hanging. In the post-mortem report of the deceased Divya Pathak, a ligature mark 27 cm x 2 cm around the neck with gap of 10 cm R.P. side back of neck-distance 4.5 cm below chin, 6 cm below left ear,1.5 cm below right ear-on dissection white glistening subcutaneous tissue underline ligature mark was found. According to opinion of doctor, the cause of death was asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. The investigation was conducted by Circle Officer, who examined the witnesses, conducted local inspection of place of incident, prepared site plan and after concluding investigation, submitted charge-sheet against husband of the deceased namely, Sanjay Pathak and dropped the name of named accused persons Devi Dayal Pathak, Kanchan Pathak and Bittu Tiwari @ Sukriti, the sister-in-law of the deceased, finding their implication in the F.I.R. false. According to Investigating Officer, the parents-in-law of the deceased were residing separately from deceased and her husband, prior to death of the deceased and accused Bittu Tiwari was married 20 years ago and visit her parental place, occassionaly. Her matrimonial place lies in District-Kanpur Dehat. The Investigation Officer placed reliance on statements of independent witnesses Chaya Devi, Guddi wife of Ram Singh, Asha wife of Vinod Kumar, Balram, Jagdish Dubey, Sumant Pandey while exonerating the respondent nos. 2 to 4 in charge-sheet. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against chargesheeted accused Sanjay Pathak and committed the case for trial to court o