JUDGMENT :

SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

1. This criminal revision has been filed for challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar in S.T. No. 631 of 2018 (State vs. Khudiram) arising out of Case Crime No. 301 of 2017, under Sections 306 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station-Sector-20, Noida, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar.

2. By the impugned order, the trial Court had rejected the application No. 31 Ka filed by the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning Mohit Mandal, Krishna Mandal, Arjun Mandal and Sheela Devi in S.T. No. 631 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 301 of 2018, under Sections 306 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Sector-20, District Noida.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 05.12.2022 has illegally rejected the application filed by the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. without considering the evidence on record. It has also been submitted that on the basis of deposition of PW-1-Sachin Kumar, PW-2-Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, PW-3 Smt. Urmila Devi and PW-4 Kaleshwar there was sufficient evidence to summon the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4, namely, Mohit Mandal, Krishna Mandal and Sheela Devi under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for trial with charge-sheeted accused, namely, Khudiram. It has also been submitted that impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures and is against the perverse and against the evidence on record and same may be set-aside.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that trial Court has passed reasoned order after discussing the deposition of PW-1 to 4 and considering the other documentary evidence. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, hence, no interference in the impugned order is warranted.

5. Heard Sri Ankit Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Alok Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

6. The brief facts of the case is that First Information Report was lodged on the application of the revisionist, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. with the averments that his son, namely, Manoj Kumar, who is aged about 24 years running a grocery shop. Co-accused, namely, Khudiram, who was of criminal nature, used to extract money from Manoj Kumar for running the shop in the area and his relatives, who are brothers-in-law and sister-in-law, namely, Mohit Mandal, Krishna Mandal and Sheela used to take free commodities from the shop of deceased Manoj Kumar and on being asked for payment of the commodities, they threatened him to defame his reputation. On 22.10.2016 at about 5:00 P.M. sister-in-law of co-accused-Khudiram entered into the shop of deceased Manoj Kumar and closed the shutter and thereafter, son of the revisionist was forced to drink intoxicating substance administered by co-accused Khudiram, therefore, he became unconscious. Co-accused- Khudiram started shouting in front of his shop that son of the revisionist has closed his sister-in-law in his shop and trying to outrage her modesty. On being conscious, son of the revisionist somehow came out through drain from behind the shop. Meanwhile, Khudiram, Mohit Mandal, Krishan Mandal with common intention entered into the house of revisionist/informant and made false allegation that his son was making indecent gesture with Sheela Kumari and they started beating him. Upon hearing the noise, Manju, Geeta and some other person of the locality reached there and saved them, then accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence after giving threat. On the same day at about 7:00 P.M. son of the revisionist committed suicide by hanging due to anguish of being falsely defamed by the accused persons. The suicide note was recovered, in which, accused persons were made responsible for his abetment to commit suicide. In this regard, revisionist had given application to the concerned Police Station, but no action was taken.

7. Before examining the merits of the present case, the ambit, scope and power o