JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Niranjan Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mrs. Sweta Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-state. 3. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. 4. This criminal revision has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 06.10.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Bermo at Tenughat so far it relates to the present petitioners whereby the petitioners have been arrayed as accused and the order under section 319 of Cr.P.C. refusing to array them as accused has been set-aside to the extent it relates to the petitioners. 5. The complainant had filed a petition before the learned trial court under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. in order to make three persons as accused in the case which was rejected vide order dated 06.10.2018 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Complaint Case No. 205 of 2006 corresponding to T.R. No. 1212 of 2006. The complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2013 which was allowed with respect to the present two petitioners who are sister-in-law and brother-in-law (husband of sister-in-law) of the victim lady and dismissed with respect to the 3rd proposed accused. The aforesaid complaint case is said to be pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. 6. Learned counsel submits that a petition under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. was filed before the learned trial court which was rejected vide order dated 26.06.2013, against which the complainant filed Cr. Revision No. 154 of 2013 which has been allowed to the extent it relates to the present petitioners i.e. Tultul Mukherjee and Jayant Mukherjee who are sister-in-law (nanad) and brother-in-law (nandoi) respectively of the complainant wife. 7. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order passed in Cr. Revision No. 154 of 2013 is ex-facie perverse and the therefore same is fit to be set aside so far it relates to the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that so far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, there is no iota of evidence as against him to rope him in the criminal case. Revision No. 154 of 2013 is ex-facie perverse and the therefore same is fit to be set aside so far it relates to the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that so far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, there is no iota of evidence as against him to rope him in the criminal case. Learned counsel submits that pre-charge evidence of the complainant has been filed along with the second supplementary affidavit and has submitted that there is contradiction in the pre-charge evidence of the brother of the complainant i.e. Pradeep Kumar Goswami and Pratima Goswami, who is mother of the complainant and no specific allegation has been made as per the deposition so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-state on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is a well-reasoned order considering the pre-charge evidence of the complaint witnesses. She has in particular referred to the evidence of the victim- the complainant. She has submitted that specific statement has been made that at the time of marriage, cash as well as other articles were given and present petitioners were residing in the matrimonial house of the complainant. The complainant was permitted to live in her matrimonial house after the demand of Rs.1 lacs and a Maruti Car was fulfilled by her brother to some extent. The complainant became pregnant in 2003 and it has been alleged that her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law used to torture her and also kicked her on her womb and thereafter considering that harm may not cause to her womb, she called her brother and went to her parents’ house and subsequently she gave birth to a boy child. The learned counsel for the state has also submitted that the complainant has further stated in her evidence that present petitioners had also taken part in throwing the new born child on the floor and ultimately the child had expired. The learned counsel for the state submits that there was enough material of the complainant witness, who is the victim of the case, to make the petitioners accused in the present case and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned court below in great details while passing the impugned order. 9. The learned counsel for the state submits that there was enough material of the complainant witness, who is the victim of the case, to make the petitioners accused in the present case and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned court below in great details while passing the impugned order. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials placed on record including the orders passed by learned courts below it appears that the present petitioners and one more were named accused in the complaint case, but upon inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. a prima-facie case was made out against the other accused persons, against which the complainant filed Cr. Revision no. 106 of 2006 and the learned sessions court dismissed the same with observation that there is ample option available to the complainant to invoke provision of section 319 Cr.P.C. at appropriate stage. Thereafter upon appearance of the accused persons, the matter went to the stage of pre-charge evidence when the complainant produced three witnesses including herself and then filed petition under section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning three persons including the petitioners and one another person and the same was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 26.06.2013 by holding that omnibus allegation be stating “all accused persons…” was not sufficient to issue summons under section 319 of Cr.P.C. and something more was required. Against the order dated 26.06.2013 the complainant preferred Cr. Revision no. 154/2013 which was allowed vide order dated 23.09.2014. The added accused persons including the petitioners filed Cr. Revision no. 134 of 2014 before the High Court challenging the order dated 23.09.2014 and the order was set-aside holding that the order was passed by referring to the allegations and without appreciating the evidence of the witnesses and the matter was remitted back to the sessions court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law and after hearing the respective parties. Consequently, the matter was heard afresh and the impugned order was passed. 10. The learned court below considered the evidences of all the three witnesses and found specific material against the present petitioners and no material against the third proposed accused, namely Smt. Mugdha Mishra. Consequently, the matter was heard afresh and the impugned order was passed. 10. The learned court below considered the evidences of all the three witnesses and found specific material against the present petitioners and no material against the third proposed accused, namely Smt. Mugdha Mishra. This court finds that the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order has scrutinized the evidences of the witnesses and has set- aside the order dated 26.06.2013 by passing a well-reasoned order by referring to specific evidences against the present petitioners and has sustained the order dated 26.06.2013 so far as the third person, namely, Smt. Mugdha Mishra is concerned. The learned Sessions Judge has clearly discussed the specific evidences against the present petitioners in para, 9, 10, and 11 and upon appreciating the evidences the learned sessions judge has clearly recorded that there are specific evidence against the present petitioners to summon them under section 319 Cr.P.C. for their trial along with other accused persons. The finding of the learned court below in para 11 of the impugned order is quoted as under: - “11. Thus considering the above discussions on the pre-charge evidence of the complainant-petitioner it is found that there is foundation of allegations against respondent No. 3 and 4 in the pre-charge evidence adduced on record them thus there appears sufficient evidence indicating the involvement of the respondents no. 3 and 4 namely Tultul Mukherjee and Jayant Mukherjee in the occurrence alleged, but at the same time there appear lack of evidence as against the respondent no. 2 Smt. Mugdha Mishra and accordingly the rejection of the petition under Section 319 Cr. P.C. as against the respondents no. 3 and 4 by the Ld. Court below is unsustainable in law. Even, the perusal of the impugned order dt. 26.06.13 passed by the Ld. Court below shows that facts viz-a-viz pre-charge evidence have not be discussed at all and only the legal proposition of law under provision u/s 319 Cr. P.C. has been written in the Order, as such the Order appears to suffer from error on the face of the record.” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any error, perversity or material irregularity in the discussions of the evidences as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order. P.C. has been written in the Order, as such the Order appears to suffer from error on the face of the record.” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any error, perversity or material irregularity in the discussions of the evidences as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners has otherwise also not been able to satisfy this court on the point of any perversity or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned sessions court. In fact, the learned sessions court had found the order refusing to summon the present petitioners under section 319 of Cr.P.C. is suffering from serious irregularity as discussed in para 11 of the impugned order quoted above. This court is of the considered view that the learned sessions judge has rightly set-aside the order passed by the learned trial court so far as the present petitioners are concerned. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.10.2018 passed in Cr. Revision No. 154 of 2013, so far as it relates to the present petitioners, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 12. However, it is observed that the observations made herein will not prejudice the case of the petitioners before the learned trial court in any manner whatsoever and it will be open to the petitioners to take all the points as may be available to them in law before the learned court below. 13. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. 14. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX/e-mail.