JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for setting aside the order dated 04.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 137 of 2019, titled Uma Dhiman and Another v. Smt. Renu Dhiman and Another. The Applicant further prays for the restoration of the summoning order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun, in Case No. 3499 of 2016.

2. The factual background of the case, briefly stated, is that the Applicant lodged an FIR being Case Crime No. 110 of 2016 at Police Station Patel Nagar, District Dehradun, against three persons, namely (i) Deepak Dhiman (husband), (ii) Uma Dhiman (mother-in-law), and (iii) Amit Dhiman (brother-in-law), alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The gravamen of the FIR is that the Applicant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty on account of unlawful demands of dowry made by the accused persons. The FIR specifically attributes acts of harassment and cruelty to Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (mother-in-law and brother-in-law) in addition to the husband.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet dated 20.06.2016 against only the husband (accused No. 1) and submitted a final report (closure) in respect of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

5. Aggrieved by the exclusion of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from the charge sheet, the Applicant filed a protest petition dated 09.11.2016 under Section 173(8) CrPC before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun. The said protest petition was dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2017.

6. During the course of the trial, after recording the statement of the complainant (PW-1), the Applicant moved an application under Section 319 CrPC for summoning Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to face trial as additional accused.

7. The application under Section 319 CrPC was allowed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun, vide order dated 08.04.2019, primarily relying upon the statements made by the complainant in her examination-in-chief and the contents of the FIR.

8. Aggrieved by the summoning order, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 preferred Criminal Revision No. 137 of 2019 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Dehradun. The Revisional Court allowed the revision vide order dated 04.09.2019, setting aside the summoning order dated 08.04.2019.

9. The Revisional Court held that since the protest petition filed earlier by the Applicant had already been dismissed on 07.10.2017, the subsequent application under Section 319 CrPC amounts to a review of the earlier order and is impermissible in law.

10. The Revisional Court further observed that the evidence adduced during the trial was not sufficient to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC, which requires strong and cogent evidence indicative of the involvement of the persons sought to be summoned.

11. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 04.09.2019 passed by the Revisional Court suffers from patent illegality and is unsustainable in law.

12. It is contended that the Revisional Court has erred in equating the protest petition under Section 173(8) CrPC with the application under Section 319 CrPC. The two proceedings are distinct, operate at different stages of the criminal process, and are governed by different legal standards.

13. Learned counsel submitted that the dismissal of the protest petition does not operate as res judicata against the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, which arises upon the emergence of additional evidence during trial.

14. It is further contended that the statement of the complainant recorded during trial, coupled with the