Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134490 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 596 of 2025 Revisionist :- Smt. Haseena And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- S.P.S. Chauhan,Smt. Meenakshi Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. None appears for the revisionist. 2. Learned counsel for the first informant and counsel for the opposite party No.2 and AGA are present. 3. By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged the impugned summoning order dated 12.12.2024 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No.2442 of 2019 (State Vs. Taufiq) whereby Smt. Haseena, Guddu, Razia and Bunti have been summoned to face trial under Section 498-A, 304-B, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. 4. Although learned counsel for the revisionist is not present, the grounds taken in the revision allege that the prosecution story is false. No assault injuries were found on the body of the deceased, Rani. The deceased committed suicide in her matrimonial home, and the accused were not present at the time of the incident. The accused persons had participated in the cremation of the body. The first informant and his wife gave an affidavit during the investigation stating that the deceased was short-tempered and had committed suicide. The first informant also stated in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the deceased, being short-tempered, had committed suicide. The general allegations of dowry and harassment levelled against the summoned accused are an afterthought. The deceased was not satisfied with her husband's income and coerced him to earn more, which the husband failed to do. Based on the above grounds, the impugned order has been challenged by the instant criminal revision. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant/opposite party No. 2 submits that there is sufficient evidence against the summoned accused persons, and therefore, no interference is warranted in this criminal revision. He further submits that the affidavit given during the investigation and the statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the first informant and his wife were under coercion. He also argues that the deceased was assaulted and murdered in her matrimonial home within a year of her marriage, which prima facie proves that an offence under Section 304-B IPC was committed by the accused. Therefore, the trial court did not commit any illegality in summoning the revisionist to face trial. 6. The AGA has also adopted the arguments of the first informant. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that only a ligature mark was found during the autopsy of the deceased. According to the doctor, she died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. Since no assault injuries were found on her body, the prosecution's prima facie case that the deceased was assaulted is not supported by the evidence. 8. From the record, it appears that the deceased bolted the room from inside before committing suicide. The doors were then broken down to retrieve her body. It is also on record that during the investigation, the first informant, Saleem and his wife Nagina, gave an affidavit to the Investigating Officer. In the affidavit, they stated that their daughter, Rani, was short- tempered with liberal views and wanted to live independently. She was prone to unpredictable behavior and had previously attempted to commit suicide at her matrimonial home. Although she had been consoled, she remained unyielding. The affidavit specifically mentions that she committed suicide due to her short temper and annoyance. 9. It has also come on record that the first informant, Saleem gave a statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., where he affirmed the above facts. He stated that his daughter was short- tempered and wanted more money for her expenses, which her husband was unable to provide. As a result, she was disgruntled with her husband and committed suicide. In this statement, the first informant also mentioned that the accused persons were innocent and that he had falsely implicated them at the insistence of people nearby. 10. During trial, when PW-1 Saleem was confronted with the above facts then he simply admitted that he and his wife had given affidavit during investigation to the Investigating Officer in which the above facts were mentioned. He also admitted in his cross examination that the information of death of Rani was given to him by her brother-in-law (Jeth) Guddu. It is also evident that PW-1 and PW-2 are not the eye witnesses of this incident. 11. The above evidence prima facie makes the entire prosecution story doubtful. Despite this, the trial court has summoned Smt. Haseena (mother-in-law), Guddu (brother-in- law), Razia (sister-in-law), and Bunti (brother-in-law) of the deceased under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. without proper application of mind and without appreciating the aforementioned evidence. 12. In view of the above, the trial court has passed a wholly perverse order which requires interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.3, Aligarh in S.T. No.2442 of 2019 (State Vs. Taufiq) is hereby quashed. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Himanshu Digitally signed by :- HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad