HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 237 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist,learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge / F.T.C., Court No. 2, Firozabad in Session Trial No. 503 of 2022 (State vs. Vishal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 432 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Jasrana, District- Firozabad, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application moved by the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is wholly illegal and arbitrary. He next submitted that, so far as the two prospective accused namely, Awadhesh and Chhote Lal are concerned they are the sons of Munna Lal, who happened to be a mediator for getting the marriage solemnized. He further submitted that, so far as the Munna Lal is concerned, his name has been arrayed in the chargesheet as an accused, however the learned trial Court without going on the facts that Chottey Lal and Awadhesh were not residing at Jasrana and has arrived at the findings that, Chottey Lal was doing some business with the contractor and resided at Bateshwar and Adawhesh was a fair shop dealer and resided at Jasrana and held that, so far as Awadhesh and Chottey Lal are concerned, they are having their own business and they have nothing to do with day to day affairs, going on in the matrimonial home of the complainant and subsequently, they were not chargesheeted. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Manish Pandey, Radhey Krishna Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Vikram Yadav, G.A. Rakesh Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the order passed by the learned trial Court is in accordance with law and the same is based on facts and the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. In the testimony of two witnesses, it has categorically been stated that Awadhesh was having a Ration shop at Jasrana and Chottey Lal was having some business with the contractor at Bateshwar and they had nothing to do with the day to day affairs being going on in the matrimonial home of the complainant. He lastly submitted that the husband, mother-in-law, and uncle (phupha) have already been chargsheeted and further prayed that the said revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned order, as well as the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Firozabad does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity warranting any interference. 6. The revision is accordingly dismissed. September 22, 2025 Faridul CRLR No. 237 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad