-1- Criminal Revision No.578 of 2004. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Revision No.578 of 2004. Date of Decision: January 18, 2010. State of Haryana ...Petitioner VERSUS Vidya Devi ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. None for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This revision petition has been filed by the State of Haryana under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code') against the judgment dated 1.9.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, whereby the revision petition filed by respondent Vidya Devi under Section 397 of the Code against the order dated 27.2.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hissar, summoning her to face trial by allowing the application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code was accepted. -2- Criminal Revision No.578 of 2004. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana and have perused the impugned judgment rendered by the lower appellate Court. The trial Judge, while allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code, summoned respondent Vidya Devi to face trial under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in case F.I.R. No.154 dated 20.7.1998 registered at Police Station Adampur. This order passed by the trial Judge was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, on a revision petition preferred by respondent Vidya Devi under Section 397 of the Code. In the said case, husband of complainant Smt.Ram Murti, her father-in- law, brother of her husband and maternal uncle of her husband were facing prosecution. As per prosecution version, respondent Vidya Devi, who is mother-in-law of complainant Smt. Ram Murti, had demanded a scooter in dowry. Vidya Devi was not to derive any benefit from the scooter. It was only the husband of the complainant who could have derive any benefit from the same. Respondent Vidya Devi had been found innocent during the investigation of the case by the police. There was no evidence against respondent Vidya Devi regarding entrustment of any article of dowry including ornaments of the complainant. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal -3- Criminal Revision No.578 of 2004. Procedure. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. January 18, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE