ORDER : Ganesh Ram Meena, J. 1. This criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the order dated 09.09.2003 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.1, Fast Track, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short ‘the learned court below’) in Sessions Case No. 92/2002, whereby the application filed by the prosecution under section 319 CrPC has been allowed to the extent of present petitioner and cognizance for the offences under sections 498A and 306 IPC has been taken against him and he has been summoned through bailable warrants. The application has been dismissed as regards the other two accused persons namely; Smt. Vimla Agarwal and Rekha. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Jagdish Prasad Mittal (PW1) lodged an FIR against the present petitioner, his wife Smt. Vimla Agarwal, his son Satish Kumar Agarwal and his married daughter namely; Smt. Rekha Agarwal with the allegations of cruelty for demand of dowry which resulted into the death of complainant’s daughter namely; Smt. Kamlesh. It was stated that the marriage of complainant’s daughter namely; Smt. Kamlesh was solemnized with Satish Kumar Agarwal in the year 1989 and Kamlesh committed suicide on 17.09.1999. 3. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against accused namely; Satish Kumar Agarwal (husband of the deceased) only for the offence under section 498A IPC before the concerned Magistrate. However, the learned Magistrate directed the police to reinvestigate into the matter to find out the genuineness of the suicide note and lateron the police submitted the fresh charge-sheet against accused Satish Kumar Agarwal for the offences under sections 498A and 306 IPC. Since no offence was found to be made out against the present petitioner and his wife Smt. Vimla Agarwal and daughter Rekha Agarwal, no charge-sheet was filed against them. 4. After framing of the charges against the accused Satish Kumar Agarwal, the prosecution got examined certain witnesses. 5. After examination of PW1 Jagdish Prasad Mittal, PW2 Smt. Mithlesh and PW3 Gopal Bansal, an application was filed on 21.04.2003 under section 319 CrPC so as to take cognizance against the present petitioner, Smt. Vimla Agarwal and Smt. Rekha. 6. The learned court below vide order dated 09.09.2003 allowed the application filed under section 319 CrPC to the extent of present petitioner Dr. 6. The learned court below vide order dated 09.09.2003 allowed the application filed under section 319 CrPC to the extent of present petitioner Dr. S.L Agarwal only and took cognizance against him for the offences under sections 498A and 306 IPC and summoned him through bailable warrants. 7. Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that the learned court below has taken cognizance against the present petitioner for the offences under sections 498A and 306 IPC without there being proper appreciation of the version of the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that the marriage took place on 06.07.1989 and the deceased committed suicide on 17.09.1999 i.e. after ten years of the marriage. Counsel submitted that there are two kids from the wedlock of Satish Kumar Agarwal and deceased Kamlesh. Counsel submitted that there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry in the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded prior to taking cognizance against the present petitioner and only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the entire family of husband (Satish Kumar). Counsel submitted that the petitioner is father-in-law of the deceased Kamlesh and presently he is 89 years of age. Counsel further submitted that the learned court below has taken into consideration the allegations of misbehave by the petitioner with the deceased on 06.10.1991 i.e. 8 years earlier to the incident of committing suicide as an abetment. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that section 107 IPC deals with abetment of a thing. He further submitted that no act of the present petitioner, as per the version of the prosecution witnesses, can be said to be an act of demand of dowry or abetment in committing suicide. 9. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that after full-fledged trial, the accused against whom the police submitted the charge-sheet i.e. Satish Kumar Agarwal, has been acquitted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 30.08.2006. It has been further submitted that after the deceased and her husband Satish Kumar Agarwal were living separately at the place of posting of her husband and the deceased was not willing to reside with the in-laws. 10. Counsel further submitted that the learned trial court has also left the suicide note (Ex.D1) and in that suicide note there is no allegation against anyone. 11. 10. Counsel further submitted that the learned trial court has also left the suicide note (Ex.D1) and in that suicide note there is no allegation against anyone. 11. Counsel also submitted that the learned trial court while passing the impugned order failed to appreciate the fact that the power given under Section 319 CrPC is the extra ordinary power and should be used sparingly. The learned trial court without assigning the cogent reason in a very casual manner passed the impugned order and summoned the petitioner as an additional accused which is not permissible in the eye of law. 12. Counsel further submitted that no allegations of any kind have been levelled by brother and sister’s husband of deceased Kamlesh, who were present at the time of inquest report (ExP7) prepared on 17.09.1999. Counsel also submitted that the FIR was lodged after a delay of four days for which no reasonable and plausible explanation was submitted by the prosecution. 13. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed aforesaid submissions and submitted that the learned court below passed the impugned order after appreciation of the statements of the prosecution witnesses in a proper manner. He further submitted that there are specific allegations of demand of dowry against the present petitioner and the act of the present petitioner is covered under the abetment for suicide. He also submitted that the order impugned does not deserve any interference as the same does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. 14. Considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and also perused the record of the trial court which is connected with S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1379/2006 filed by complainant Jagdish Mittal against the acquittal of accused Satish Kumar Agarwal. 15. Section 319 CrPC says that where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. 16. After going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely; PW1 Jagdish Prasad Mittal, PW2 Smt. Mithlesh and PW3 Gopal Bansal, this Court finds that there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry as against the present petitioner. 16. After going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses namely; PW1 Jagdish Prasad Mittal, PW2 Smt. Mithlesh and PW3 Gopal Bansal, this Court finds that there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry as against the present petitioner. There may be certain allegations of misbehave with the deceased but there is nothing on record that the present petitioner has ever demanded any particular thing or article as a dowry. The learned court below has taken cognizance against the present petitioner only on the basis of some allegations of misbehave and the fact that the deceased had committed suicide. The learned court below has not taken into consideration the material fact which has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the deceased and her husband-Satish Kumar Agarwal were living separately at the place of posting of the husband. The learned court below has erred in considering the allegations dated 06.10.1991 to be the abetment of suicide which actually occurred on 17.09.1999 i.e. after eight years. 17. As per the facts on record, the marriage took place in the Month of 06.07.1989 and there are allegations of torturing soon after the marriage which the deceased informed to her parents. However, thereafter, the husband of the deceased was transferred to some other place and the deceased resided with her husband at the place of posting. The learned court below has not appreciated this fact that when the wife is residing with her husband at a different place, how the in-laws can torture her for demand of dowry which resulted into suicide of the deceased. 18. During the investigation the suicide note of the deceased was also recovered which was got exhibited as Ex.D1 during the trial of the accused Satish Kumar Agarwal. In the suicide note written in the handwriting of the deceased herself, there is no allegation against any person. In the suicide note it has been stated in specific words that ^^eq>s fdlh ls dksbZ f'kdk;r ugha gSA d`I;k esjh vka[ksa nku dj nh tk;sA** The learned court below has not cared to appreciate this material evidence. 19. The present petitioner has now attained the age of 89 years and even if at all he is prosecuted and convicted for the alleged offences, he may get the benefit of probation considering his age and there being no criminal antecedents. 19. The present petitioner has now attained the age of 89 years and even if at all he is prosecuted and convicted for the alleged offences, he may get the benefit of probation considering his age and there being no criminal antecedents. In such circumstances, fresh trial of the present petitioner may be of no consequence. It has also come on record that the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Satish Kumar Agarwal, who is husband of the deceased. After full-fledged trial, the said accused was acquitted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 30.08.2006 with the observations that there is no evidence on record in regard to cruelty for demand of dowry which resulted into the suicide by the deceased. 20. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that the order dated 09.09.2003 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.1, Fast Track, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 92/2002, is illegal, perverse and contrary to the facts and law and therefore, the same is quashed and set aside. The revision petition stands allowed.