1 SB CRI. REVISION NO.864/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION NO.864/2010 [BHANWARU KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJ.] Date of Order :: 15.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.AR Malkani for the petitioner. ***** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This is a challenge made by Bhanwaru Khan by way of filing revision petition against the order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Churu vide judgment dated 10.11.2010 by which the learned District & Sessions Judge, Churu rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Facts of the case in nut shell are that petitioner Bhanwaru Khan lodged a First Information Report against Aarif, Mubarak, Niyamat and Farzana for the commission of offence under Section 304-B, 302/34, 498-A and 120-B IPC. Police after investigation, filed a charge sheet against Aarif and Mubarak and kept the 2 SB CRI. REVISION NO.864/2010 investigation pending against the rest of accused persons under Section 173 (8) of the Cr.P.C. After recording the evidence of Bhanwaru Khan and Shannu Khan the complainant Bhanwaru Khan moved an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. requesting for taking cognizance against the mother-in-law Niyamat and sister-in-law Farzana of the deceased Israt Bano for offence under Section 304, 302/34, 498-A and 120-B IPC. The learned trial court after taking note, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence aggrieved by this order filed this revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the FIR itself Bhanwaru Khan alleged that dowry was demanded by Niyamat and Farzana also and there were also allegations of dowry death against these two persons also. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the statements of these two witnesses recorded in the trial court, the learned trial court ought to have took cognizance against these persons i.e. Niyamat and Farzana. 3 SB CRI. REVISION NO.864/2010 Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to proceed against a person not being accused but it appears from the evidence that he has also committed any offence for which he could be tried together. Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2007 SC 1899 Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq held that discretion under Sectioin 319 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised when court arrives at satisfaction that there exist possibility that accused so summoned in all likelihood would be convicted. The learned trial court while deciding the application observed that there was no direct evidence against Niyamat and Farzana for commission of offence and even on the basis of statements PW 1 Bhanwaru Khan and PW2 Shannu Khan it cannot be said that they have committed offence for which they can be tried together. I have perused the order dated 10.11.2010 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Churu, learned trial court observed that there was no 4 SB CRI. REVISION NO.864/2010 evidence on record that just before the incident Niyamat and Farzana demanded dowry from the relatives of deceased and there are no reasons to believe that these two persons Niyamat and Farzana could be convicted on the basis of evidence available on record. In my considered view the view expressed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Churu does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and there is no reason to interfere with the order dated 10.11.2010 passed in Sessions Case No.15/2009 at this stage. Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. [KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI], J. mamta