Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134355 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1069 of 2025 Revisionist :- Rishi Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Kumar Tripathi,G.A. Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present revision has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 06/01/2025 passed by Additional Session Judge Court- 15, Ghaziabad, in Session Trial No. 201 of 2017 (State Vs. Amit and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1989 of 2016 under sections 498-A, 304B of I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Sahibabad, District- Ghaziabad in respect of opposite party no. 2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the first informant-revisionist submitted that the first informant's daughter, Reena, was married to Amit on January 15, 2013. The first informant gave substantial jewellery and other items in dowry, at the time of marriage, which was beyond his financial capacity. However, in-laws of Reena were not satisfied and demanded an additional Rs. 10 lakh in dowry. When this demand was not met, Reena was subjected to mental and physical harassment. Reena informed the first informant about this harassment, who attempted to resolve the matter but was unsuccessful. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that due to the persistent dowry demand and harassment, Reena returned to her parental home on November 22, 2016, with her minor son and committed suicide on 25.11.2016. At that time, Reena was also pregnant. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that during the investigation, due to the influence of Rajeev Kumar and his wife, Charu, who are the elder brother and sister-in-law of Reena's husband, Amit Kumar, a charge sheet was not submitted by the Investigating Officer. However, during the trial, the evidence of the first informant (PW-1) proved that Rajeev Kumar and Charu were also involved in the dowry demand and had subjected the deceased to physical and mental harassment, when the demand was not fulfilled. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that in light of this evidence, an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was moved by the first informant before the trial court, which was illegally rejected by the impugned order, as the evidence was not considered in its true perspective. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that sufficient prima facie evidence is available on record to prove the involvement of Rajeev Kumar (opposite party No.2) and Charu (opposite party No.3), and as such, they should have been summoned to face trial along with the other co-accused. With these submissions, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 8. No one appears for the opposite party Nos.2 & 3. 9. It has come on record in the testimony of the first informant (PW-1) that Rajeev Kumar, who is a Constable in Delhi Police, resides in Delhi with his wife Charu. The evidence also suggests that the allegations of dowry demand are general in nature, with no specific claims made against Rajeev Kumar and Charu. Reena committed suicide at her parental home, along with her minor son and she was also pregnant at that time. PW-1 admitted during cross-examination that neither a Panchayat was called to resolve the dowry demand nor any complaint was made to the police officials. 10. It has also come on record that when Reena was brought to the hospital on 25.11.2016 for treatment then on getting this information, the in-laws of Reena arrived at that hospital. It has also come on record that no suicide note of Reena is available on record. It is also evident that Reena was educated, who was trying to secure a job for which her in-laws were providing coaching. PW-1 has also feigned ignorance regarding the help provided by the accused, to his son Chandramohan for undergoing graduation studies. 11. It appears that only general allegations of dowry demand have been levelled against Rajeev Kumar and Charu. The trial court concluded that at the time of the alleged incident, Rajeev and Charu were living separately in Delhi and, therefore, has not summoned them to face trial with the other co-accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. It cannot be denied that there is general tendency to inculpate all the family members of the husband in a dowry death case. 12. In light of the above facts and evidence on record, the impugned order cannot be termed perverse, which requires no interference from this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Himanshu Digitally signed by :- HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad