(1) Gurpreet Kaur @ Sukhpal Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : Gurpreet Kaur @ Sukhpal Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.425/2005. DATE OF ORDER : April 05, 2007 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas _______________________________ Mr. M.K. Garg for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Singh for the non-petitioner(s). BY THE COURT : By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 23.04.2005 passed by the Special Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Sriganganagar by which the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319, Cr.P.C. The facts narrated in the petition are that the petitioner lodged complaint on 09.07.2002 at Police Station Lalgarh Jatan against Jinder @ Jalvinder Singh, Kewal Singh, Chinderpal Kaur, (2) Gurpreet Kaur @ Sukhpal Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others Paramjeet Kaur, Tarsem Singh, Manprit Kaur and Baljeet Singh whereupon FIR No.146 was registered and after usual investigation challan was filed in the Court against father-in-law, Kewal Singh, mother-in-law Chinderpal Kaur and husband Jalvinder Singh. After framing charge against all these three persons, the trial commenced. After recording statements at the trial, the petitioner moved application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. and contended that though specific allegations were levelled against the present non-petitioners and as per statement recorded before the Court of the prosecution witnesses P.W.-1 Dr. Balwant Siyag and P.W.- 2 complainant Gurpreet Kaur, it is clear that specific allegations were levelled by the complainant against all the non-petitioners. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court failed to consider the material on record and rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319, Cr.P.C. Assailing the impugned order, it is contended that as per Section 319, Cr.P.C. if evidence on record appears enough to prima facie convince the mind of the Magistrate or Judge concerned as to ultimate conviction of the accused, then it is obligatory upon the Court to take cognizance; but, in this case, knowingly well the learned trial Court while ignoring the evidence (3) Gurpreet Kaur @ Sukhpal Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others on record refused to take cognizance against the non-petitioners against whom she levelled specific allegation of assaulting upon her and rejected the application filed under Section 319, Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention towards statement of P.W.-2 Gurpreet Kaur contended that specific allegations were levelled against the non-petitioners with regard to assault made upon her by the non-petitioners for demand of dowry. But, the learned trial Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter which is erroneous. On the other hand, Mr. C.S. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the the non-petitioners contended that the order impugned is just and proper and from perusal of the order itself it is obvious that there is no material on record upon which it can be said that ultimately on the basis of the said evidence the non-petitioners can be convicted. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order I do not find day good ground made out for interference. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.