IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2009 Geeta Saini D/o Tarachand R/o A-9, Type-2, Sector-1 BHEL, Ranipur, District-Haridwar. .……….Applicant/Revisionist. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Home Secretary Dehradun. 2. Kela Devi, W/o Deshraj 3. Deshraj, S/o Bhanna, 4. Asvani @ Sonu, S/o Deshraj 5. Sonia, D/o Deshraj All opposite party no. 2 to 5 are R/o Q.N.-197, Type-2, Sector-1, BHEl, Haridwar. 6. Pritam, S/o Mulchand R/O Mohalla-Kadaach, P.S. Jwalapur, District Haridwar 7. Shivram, S/o Gangarm R/o 197, Type-2, Sector-1, BHEL, Haridwar Presently residing at Q.No. 108, Type-2, Sector-2, BHEL, Haridwar. …………Opposite parties. Shri S.K. Shandilya, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A. with Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the state. Shri Parikshit Saini, Advocate, present for respondents No. 2 to 5. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 15.04.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge /III Fast Track Court, Haridwar, in sessions trial No. 217 of 2008 whereby said court has dismissed the application moved on behalf of the prosecution for summoning the respondents No. 3 to 7. 3. I have gone through the impugned order dated 15.04.2009, passed by the trial court and also considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The complainant has named only Kela Devi, as an accused. It appears that in her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C., she named only said accused Kela Devi, and a charge sheet was filed against only Kela Devi (respondent No. 2). It appears that complainant Geeta Saini, who lodged first information report made an improvement at the stage of her examination as P.W-1 and named respondents No. 3 to 7 also. The trial court has rightly taken note of the fact that since these respondents were known to the complainant therefore there should have 3 been no difficulty on her part in naming them in the first information report or in the statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. I do not find any illegality on the part of the trial court in rejecting the application moved under section 319 of Cr.P.C. and declining to summon the respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 7, to face the trial. 4. The revision is summarily dismissed. (Urgency application No. 1506/2010, stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:28.04.2010 parul 4