IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the revisional court's order, emphasizing the significance of the victim's testimony in dowry harassment and rape cases, and affirmed the legal validity of the summoning order.

JUDGMENT :

Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. De-link the Application U/S 482 No. 16593 of 2019 (Tejbir Gulati Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another) from the present application.

2. Heard Mr. Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I for the State

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 20.02.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-I, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 176/2019 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 307, 406, 376, 511 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, District Ghaziabad.

4. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by Navneet Kumar-opposite party no. 2 against the applicant (husband) and other family members on 17.08.2018 with the allegations that the opposite party no. 2 was mentally and physically harassed for additional dowry demand by the applicant as well as other family members. It has been further alleged that opposite party no. 2 was married with the applicant on 30.05.2003 according to Hindu rites and rituals. The family of the opposite party no. 2 gave dowry and gifts as per their capacity, which included jewellery, expensive clothes and other household items as well as cash, all the aforesaid jewellery and other expensive items were handed over to the applicant and his family members and they have the possession of the same till date. The applicant and his family members did not like the gifts and expensive items including jewellery as given by parents of opposite party no. 2, thus they started pestering and harassing the opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 tolerated the aforesaid conduct of applicant and his family members thinking that with passage of time there will be some change in their attitude. Things did not change with passage of time and the applicant and his family members started demanding additional dowry for which she was mentally and physically harassed in every manner. They also threatened her for life in case of non-fulfilment of the additional dowry demand as raised by them. The other allegations are detailed in the FIR.

5. After investigation final report was submitted on 05.02.2019, the opposite party no. 2 filed protest petition which has been rejected by order dated 08.03.2019, thus accepting final report dated 05.02.2019. Against the aforesaid order a revision was filed, the same has been allowed by order dated 20.02.2021 by setting aside the order dated 08.03.2019 and the matter has been remanded back to be heard afresh, hence the present petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order impugned dated 20.02.2021 allowing the revision filed by opposite party no. 2 is arbitrary and contradictory to the record available before the court below.

7. The court of ACJM, Ghaziabad while rejecting the protest petition and accepting the final report has passed a detailed order coming to a conclusion that the incident of attempting to rape is said to be of 08:30 at the residence of accused and a medical report has also been placed in this regard. However the mobile location of opposite party no. 2 is different from accused Jaspreet Gulati, Mohanveer Gulati and Rishabh Gulati, thus it shows that the opposite party no. 2 was not present at the place of incident, hence, the incident as recorded appears to be doubtful. But the revisional court has committed a manifest error of law while allowing the revision not considering the final report dated 05.02.2019 as well as detailed order dated 08.03.2019 in which the entire evidences have been considered.

8. The revisional court has committed error in ignoring the other evidences and only on the basis of plea of alibi, has allowed the revision in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. The final report has been submitted by the investigating officer as on the basis of mobile location as alle