HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 377 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opp. party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1st ( Crime Against Women), Mathura in S.T. No. 240 of 2019 (State Vs. Krishna and other) arising out of Case Crime No. 56 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura, whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the prospective accused has been rejected. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that his deceased sister was married to Krishna, however, after some time, the in- laws of the deceased started harassing and assaulting her. It has further been submitted that on 17.02.2019, the deceased Ramsati informed her parents, that she was being harassed at the hands of her in-laws particularly, her husband Krishna, father-in-law and sister-in-law Poonam. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that revisionist's has two real sisters named Ramsati and Saroj, who were married in the same matrimonial home with two real brothers i.e. deceased Ramsati was married to Krishna and Saroj was married to Shishram. On 19.02.2019. the in-laws of the deceased strangulated her and hanged the body of the deceased. Thereafter, telephonic call was Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Kuldeep Singh Chahar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Sukrampal, Tikendra Pratap Singh Jitendra .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) made by another son-in-law namely Shishram to the father of the deceased that Ramsati is serious and they must visit her matrimonial home. When they reached at the matrimonial house of the deceased, she was found dead in the house. Thereafter, the brother of the deceased lodged the FIR, alleging therein that his sister had been done to death at the hands of her in-laws. Apart from the names of the farther-in-law, mother-in-law, husband, grand-in-laws and sister-in-law (Nanad) Poonam were named in the FIR. However, after completion of the investigation by the Investigating Officer, charge sheet was submitted against other co- accused persons, excluding sister-in-law Poonam. Thereafter, charge was framed and accused persons were put to trial. After commence of trial, p.w.-1 namely, informant, brother of the deceased Jitendra, p.w.-2 father of the deceased, p.w.-3 sister of the deceased namely Saroj were examined. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that despite being sufficient evidence, the prospective accused Poonam was not summoned by the court concerned. 4. After completion of testimony of witnesses, the applicant moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon the prospective accused Poonam (Nanad), but learned Additional District and Sessions Judge concerned has dismissed the application filed by the revisionist to summon the prospective accused Poonam, though there was sufficient ground available to summon the prospective accused Poonam. 5. Learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-1st ( Crime Against Women), Mathura is in accordance with law and after careful consideration of the matter, including the testimony of witnesses, the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. moved by the revisionist has rightly been rejected, as there is no infirmity in the order impugned. It is further submitted that Shishram, who is the husband of the deceased's sister made a telephonic call to the father of the deceased informing that the deceased was not well, but the said Shishram is not arrayed in the list of the witnesses. It has further been submitted that, there are material contradictions in the statements of p.w.-2 and p.w.-3, as much as the presence of the prospective accused Poonam is suspicious, whereas p.w.-2 has stated that nobody was found on his arrival at the matrimonial house CRLR No. 377 of 2024 2 of the deceased and stated that the police has taken down the body of the deceased, which was hanging in the house. The opp. party no. 3 during her examination has submitted that other co -accused persons including Poonam, the prospective accused have taken down the dead body of the deceased. Learned counsel for opp. party no. 2 submitted that the presence of the prospective accused Poonam has been disputed and stated that she already got married prior to the incident in question and was living in her matrimonial house. It has further been submitted that the present revision has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions, it can be said that father-in-law and husband of the deceased are facing trial in the case in question and other co-accused persons have passed away and after perusal the material available on record, particularly, the testimony of p.w.-2 and p.w.-3, the presence of the prospective accused Poonam (Nanad) appears to be suspicious and disputed, hence, no infirmity can be found in the order under challenge. 7. Under the circumstances, I find, this revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. September 16, 2025 Gss CRLR No. 377 of 2024 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad