IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL C482 No. 311 of 2011 Sakina and another. …………….Applicants. Vs State of Uttarakhand and another. …………..Respondents. Present : Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the applicants and Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. The applicants were named in the FIR, which was registered as Case Crime No. 38 of 2006 under Sections 498 A and 323 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar. All the same, though charge-sheet was filed against other persons, charge-sheet was not filed against the present applicants. The trial proceeded against the remaining persons. Subsequently after examination of certain evidence, the complainant / respondent no. 2 moved an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed and summoning order was passed against the present applicants. This order has been challenged by the present applicants. It is a settled principle of law that powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. should not be exercised in a casual manner, yet at the same time in a given case, it is primarily up to the trial Court to see whether in befitting case such powers have to be exercised. Though the present applicants before this Court were named in the FIR, which was registered as Case Crime No. 38 of 2006 under Sections 498A and 323 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at 2 Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar, yet the charge sheet was not filed against them. All the same, when PW1 and PW2 were examined before the Court, from their evidence it appeared to the Court that although the present applicants are not accused in the trial, they are liable to be proceeded against and therefore, the trial Court has exercised its powers under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar dated 12.5.2010 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was challenged by the applicants by filing a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar. The Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar also did not find any plausible reason to interfere in the matter. This Court finds no anomaly to interfere in the matter as the Courts below have clear powers to pass orders as have been passed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. There are no just grounds for interference by this Court in this matter in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, before disposing of the present application, it is directed that since applicant no. 1, according to the counsel for the applicants, is 84 years of age and she has been made an accused at a late stage, in case an application is moved under Section 205 of Cr.P.C for exemption of her presence, it is expected that the Court below will duly dispose of such an application in accordance with law. With these observations, the instant C-482 petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.4.2011 Rathour