ORDER : 1. The present petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 69/2011 pending on the file of learned IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (for brevity “the Trial Court”) for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The said complainant was examined as PW-1 in the said case. During the course of trial, it appears that she has made certain allegations against the present respondents also in the alleged commission of the crime. This made the prosecution to file an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. seeking their impleading as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. 2. The Trial Court by its impugned order dated 04.10.2018 allowed the application and the sisters of the accused i.e. the present respondents herein were made as accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4 in the said criminal case. Aggrieved by the same, those accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 preferred a Criminal Revision Petition before the learned V Addl. Sessions Judge, Mysuru (for brevity “Sessions Judge’s Court”) in Crl. R.P. No. 383/2018 under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) which Court by its Order dated 14.02.2019 allowed the said petition in part and set aside the Order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 69/2011. It is challenging the said Order, the de-facto complainant/ PW-1 has preferred the present criminal petition. 3. The petitioner and the respondents are being represented by their respective learned counsels. Though this matter is listed for admission, however, with the consent from both side, it is taken up for final disposal. Heard their arguments and perused the petition papers including the impugned Orders. 4. The only point that arises for my consideration is, whether the Order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge’s Court deserves any interference at the hands of this Court? 5. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court is that the present petitioner/complainant had instituted a complaint against her husband who is accused No. 1 by name T.S. Vasantha Kumar, and the present respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, by arraigning them as accused Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. It was alleged that the complainant was married to accused No. 1 T.S. Vasantha Kumar on 13.11.2009. 2, 3 and 4, by arraigning them as accused Nos. 1 to 4 respectively. It was alleged that the complainant was married to accused No. 1 T.S. Vasantha Kumar on 13.11.2009. At the time of marriage and pre-marital negotiations, accused No. 1 and his sisters had demanded huge amount of cash, gold and silver articles as dowry and after meeting the same, the marriage was performed. Even after the marriage, the accused were not treating the complainant cordially and rather the sisters of the accused by instigating accused No. 1, raised demand for additional dowry and also were ill-treating the complainant in her matrimonial home. That being the case, on one such date of incident which was on 30.10.2010 at about 4.00 to 4.30 p.m. the sisters of the accused No. 1, coming to the house of complainant abused her in filthy language and reiterated their demand for additional dowry, and all the accused threatened the complainant that if she were to come to their home without meeting their demand, she would be finished. This has made her to lodge a complaint in Mahila Police Station, Mysuru in Crime No. 181/2010. After investigation, the complainant – police filed chargesheet only against accused No. 1 T.S. Vasantha Kumar for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 504 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and dropped the remaining three accused who are the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from the charge-sheet. However, when the trial began in the matter, the complainant was examined as PW-1 who in her evidence made accusations against the present respondents also. It is thereafter the prosecution filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court which came to be allowed by the Trial Court by its Order dated 04.10.2018 and the present respondents were impleaded as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively in C.C. No. 69/2011. As already observed, the said Order was set aside by the Sessions Judge’s Court in Crl. Revision Petition No. 383/2018. 6. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court including the copy of the charge-sheet and the impugned order would go to show that the complainant as PW-1 in her evidence has stated that fifteen days after her marriage engagement with accused No. 1, his three sisters (the present respondent Nos. Revision Petition No. 383/2018. 6. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court including the copy of the charge-sheet and the impugned order would go to show that the complainant as PW-1 in her evidence has stated that fifteen days after her marriage engagement with accused No. 1, his three sisters (the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3) approaching her mother demanded for the performance of marriage in a grand manner and also for dowry in the form of cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- 100 grams of gold and 750 grams of silver articles. Though the mother of the complainant stated that no negotiation had taken place in that regard and no demand was earlier made, however, the sisters of the husband of the complainant threatened that in case the marriage is required to be performed peacefully, the complainant’s family has to meet the demand. Accordingly, the demands made by the sisters of the accused No. 1 were met. The complainant has further stated that out of the demanded dowry, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to accused No. 1 and his sisters Rukmini and Prema (respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein) in August, 2009 and remaining sum of Rs. 50,000/- was paid three days prior to the date of marriage, to accused No. 1 and to the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein. It is further shown to have come in the evidence of PW-1 that the elder sister of accused No. 1 also has abused the complainant at the end point of marriage ceremony in a function called “Beegara Outhana” that the bride has come to their house as a beggar girl. Further they also instigated their brother i.e. accused No. 1 that he should have demanded a dowry of Rs. 10,00,000/- since he was an Engineer. Further in the very same evidence of PW-1 it has also come that the witness has stated that the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (the sisters of accused No. 1) also instigated accused No. 1 i.e. their brother to dessert his wife and send her back to her parental house. Accordingly, accused No. 1 left the complainant in her parental house on 25.02.2010. Though the complainant continued to live in her parental house, however, on 30.10.2010 in the evening at 4 ‘o’ clock, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent Nos. Accordingly, accused No. 1 left the complainant in her parental house on 25.02.2010. Though the complainant continued to live in her parental house, however, on 30.10.2010 in the evening at 4 ‘o’ clock, the accused Nos. 2 and 3 (respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein) joined by accused No. 1 are said to have barged into her house and started quarrelling with her and abused the complainant. The witness is shown to have stated that even on the said date also they made demand for additional dowry and they threatened that without bringing the dowry she should not come back to her matrimonial home. 7. It is considering these aspects that the Trial Court observing that though the Investigating Officer had dropped the names of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and had filed the charge-sheet only as against accused No. 1, but the evidence given by none else than the complainant would go to show that the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 also have played important role in the offence and thus they also committed the offence, as such, it allowed the said application. 8. The Revisional Court in its impugned Order has opined that the sisters of the accused being teachers were very much engaged in their avocation as such, it was highly improbable that they had gone to the house of the complainant and abused her in filthy language and threatened her which are all beyond imagination. With the said observation, it has stated that there is no meager chance of possibility of any conviction of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in case they are added and tried along with accused No. 1. With the said finding it set aside the order of impleading passed by the Trial Court. 9. What could be seen in the above process of the reasoning of the Trial Court and the Revisional Court is that the Trial Court while considering the application filed before it under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has just confined to the materials available before it to make out a prima facie case to subject the proposed accused for a trial in the alleged offences, rightly it did not go beyond the said requirement. After satisfying that there was prima facie material against the proposed accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to be subjected to trial, it allowed the application filed by the prosecution. After satisfying that there was prima facie material against the proposed accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to be subjected to trial, it allowed the application filed by the prosecution. On the contrary, the Revisional Court, instead of ascertaining itself as to whether there are any materials to justify the impleading of accused Nos. 2 to 4 in the matter, on its own imagination and merely because all the accused who were impleaded were said to have been teachers, by itself concluded that it was highly improbable that they had gone to the house of the complainant on 30.10.2010 and created the scene as alleged by PW-1. It was not warranted of the Revisional Court to add its imagination or conclusion at the stage of impleading the proposed accused in a criminal case. On the other hand it was required of it only to see about the availability of materials to subject the proposed accused for trial. This the Revisional Court did not consider. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents in his arguments submitted that but for the complainant that there are no other charge-sheet witnesses who have spoken against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4, as such, rightly the Investigating Officer had dropped them from the charge-sheet. It is exactly the case of the complainant that though there were specific allegations made against the present respondents (accused Nos. 2 to 4) by her in her very complaint itself, the Investigating Officer had not conducted the investigation properly and had chosen to drop accused Nos. 2 to 4 from the charge-sheet for the reasons best known to him. No doubt the alleged statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by charge-sheet witness Smt. Vishalakshi who is said to be the mother of the complainant does not make any specific and direct allegation about overt act or role played by the present respondents, however, the fact remains that the complainant at the very first instance in the complaint itself had made a very serious allegation as against the present respondents (accused Nos. 2 to 4) also who were stated as accused along with her husband i.e. accused No. 1. Further in the beginning of the trial itself the complainant had sated in her evidence that the present respondents (accused Nos. 2 to 4) also who were stated as accused along with her husband i.e. accused No. 1. Further in the beginning of the trial itself the complainant had sated in her evidence that the present respondents (accused Nos. 2 to 4) were also involved in the commission of the alleged crime and has concluded their involvement which according to her were facts confined to show that there were materials before the Trial Court to order for impleading the present respondents (accused Nos. 2 to 4). This fact the Revisional Court did not notice. As such, the Order of the Revisional Court deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The petition is allowed. The Order dated 14.02.2019 passed in Crl. R.P. No. 383/2018 by the Sessions Judge’s Court is set aside. Consequently the Order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 69/2011 stands confirmed. Registry to transmit a copy of this Order both to the Sessions Judge’s Court as well as the Trial Court forthwith. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A. No. 1/2021 does not survive for consideration.