1. Though the case was listed for orders on admission as well as on IA No. 16577/2009, an application for stay, but heard finally.

2. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the complainant/applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur in ST No. 125/2008, whereby the application under section 319, Criminal Procedure Code filed by him has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the daughter of applicant namely Santoshi Vishwakarma was married with Surendra Kumar Vishwakarma on 29.6.2006. She had gone to her matrimonial house. Her husband used to demand dowry articles such as golden chain and colour T. V. and used to harass her for not fulfilling such demand, therefore she ablazed herself on fire on 6.7-.2007. She was admitted in Masahi Hospital, Chhattarpur for treatment. Thereafter, she was referred to the Medical College, Jabalpur where she died on 17.7.2007. Marg intimation was registered and the enquiry was made. It was found that her husband used to demand dowry articles and subjected her to cruelty, therefore she burnt herself. Crime No. 56/2008 was registered at Police Station Gadimalahra District Chhattarpur under section 304-B of Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against Surendra Kumar Vishwakarma. After completing the usual investigation the charge-sheet was filed in the competent Court and the case was committed to the Sessions Court where Surender Kumar Vishwakarma is facing the trial.

4. The applicant moved an application under section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code for impleading respondents No.2 to 4 as accused persons on the ground that they also demanded dowry articles and subjected to cruelty to his daughter on account of which she burnt herself. This application was rejected by the Court below, which is assailed in this revision.

5.Shri A.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident took place on 6.7.2007 and the applicant came to know on 7.7.2007 that the accused persons have burnt his daughter, but at that time he could not lodge the report because his mental condition was not g00d. He lodged report after the death of his daughter and subsequently sent letters to the police authorities for taking action against these proposed accused persons. All the witnesses including the applicant have deposed that respondents No.2 to 4 were also used to harass therefore they should also be impleaded as accused persons in this case. This Court below has committed an illegality in rejecting the application filed under section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code which deserves to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Rakesh and another v. State of Haryana, (2001) 6 SCC 248.

6. On the contrary, Shri V.P. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/State and Shri AX. Chaurasiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 4 supported the impugned order mainly contending that the deceased has not given any statement in this regard during the period of her admission in the hospital. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 submitted that applicant made unlawful demand to the respondents' and for not fulfilling such demand he is trying to falsely implicate them. According to them, the Court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application under section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code.

7. Considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.

8. The main point for consideration in this revision is that whether the Court below has committed an illegality in rejecting the application under section 319, Criminal Procedure Code.

9. The provisions of section 319 of Criminal Procedure Code are as follows:

"319. Power to proceed against other person appearing to be guilty of offence. -