JUDGMENT

Shamim Ahmed, J.

Heard Shri Bhagwati Prasad Nigam, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned AGA-1 for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the impugned summoning order dated 1.9.2022 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Application moved by the complainant Rahees under section 319 Cr.P.C. (in Sessions Trial No. 244 of 2018, State v. Salman and others), arising out of case crime no. 103 of 2018 under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Baghauli, District Hardoi, whereby the Application no. 33B under section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and applicants have been summoned to face trial.

3. As per the prosecution case a first information report was lodged by the complainant-opposite party no.2 (father of the deceased) on 28.3.2018 against four accused persons including the applicants under sections 498A,304-B IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act alleging therein that the applicants and other accused persons named in the FIR were not satisfied with the dowry given by the complainant in the marriage of his daughter with accused Salman and from the date of marriage, they used to make additional demand of dowry in the form of Alto Car. They also used to torture his daughter. When the demand of additional dowry could not be fulfilled by the complainant, the accused persons named in the FIR hanged his daughter by killing her on 24-03-2018.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the FIR, the complainant/opposite party no.2 has neither made any specific allegation of making additional demand of dowry against the applicants nor has made any specific allegation of causing cruelty to the deceased by the applicants. After lodging of the FIR, inquest of the deceased was conducted by the police. At the time of inquest, the opposite party no.2-complainant had not made any such allegation against the applicants. Thereafter the post mortem of the deceased was conducted. As per the post mortem report of the deceased no other ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased except ligature mark and cause of deceased was asphyxia due to ante mortem injury.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the investigating officer during the course of investigation found that the applicants were living separately from the deceased and her husband since 2014 whereas the alleged incident occurred on 24.03.2018. In this regard, investigating officer annexed the copy of Bahmi Batwara of the applicants from the other accused persons and even recorded the statements of the witnesses of said Bahmi Batwara namely Rajesh, Jaan Mohammad, Manoj Shukla, Bhallu and Mahboob. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that on the basis of said Bahmi Batwara, investigating officer dropped the names of the applicants who are Jeth and Jethani from the chargesheet and filed the chargesheet against other accused persons. The Investigating Officer while investigating the case found that the applicants were named on the basis of wrong facts in the alleged FIR.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the opposite party no.2 who is complainant, has not filed any protest petition against the applicants when their names were exonerated by the investigating officer from the chargesheet even though there was any application moved on behalf of opposite party no.2-complainant under section 173 (1) for further investigation if he was not satisfied with the investigatio