Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that Smt. Usha, private respondent has been served personally, all the same, none has turned up on her behalf. Hence, this Court rendered hearing to learned Counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. Also perused the papers on record.

2. Applicant Smt. Santosh has been summoned as an accused under Section 319 CrPC vide impugned order dated 17.9.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar in Criminal Case No. 4975/2004, State v. Smt. Vimala, under Section 420, 323, 504, 506 IPC. Initially an FIR was lodged by Smt. Usha against Smt. Santosh, Smt. Vimla and Virju. Investigation Officer after completion of the investigation did not find any evidence against Smt. Santosh and Virju. Accordingly, the chargesheet was filed only against Smt. Vimla. Thereafter trial proceeded. Informant Smt. Usha was examined as PW1. In her examination-in-chief, she named the present applicant Smt. Santosh as the perpetrator of the crime. So, the court below summoned the applicant under Section 319 CrPC.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that only the examination-in-chief of PW1 Smt. Usha has be