Rakesh vs The State of U.P. and Smt. Suraj Vati

Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

The applicant is the informant of a case u/s 304B I.P.C The said matter was investigated and the police found the complicity of respondent No. 2 Smt. Suraj Vati to be false. Smt. Suraj Vati was the chachia sass of the deceased. The trial proceeded and the name of respondent nol. 2 Smt. Suraj Vati was taken by the witness without assigning any specific role to his or any cogent reasons for her participation. The trial court was of if the view that so far as dowry is Concerned the husband, father-in-taw, mother-in-law, brother and Sisters can be said to have demanded but so far as distance relative like present respondent No. 2 Smt. Suraj vati is concerned it is not comprehensible that she will also demand the dowry. Therefore, the trial court vide impugned order dated 13th March 2006 has rejected the application of the prosecution to summon respondent No. 2 as an accused in the case u/s 319 Cr.P.C. The reasoning given by the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that every person should be summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C. only if his name figures in the statement. Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not meant for the purposes of harassment and false implication. Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a salutary Section and has been provided to the court for the purpose of fostering the cause of justice that no guilty person should go unpunished. This does not mean that even those person who are innocent and against whom there is no credible evidence should also be summoned as an accused only to face the trial.

In this view of the matter, there is no illegality into the Impugned order dated 13.3.06. Consequently, this application is merit less and is rejected.