This Revision has been filed on behalf of revisionist no.1 who happens to be 'Mama' of the deceased and revisionist no. 2 who happens to be 'Mausi' of the deceased. Being aggrieved of order dated 19.03.2016 whereby on general and omnibus allegation, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed seeking summoning of Jameel and Meena along with other persons in regard to provisions contained in Sections 498A, 304-B, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that after registration of F.I.R., investigation was carried out and upon investigation, police had given clean-chit to the present revisionists on the ground that there are general and omnibus allegations and the revisionists have separate residence. However, it is submitted that without going through the cross-examination of the star witness i.e. Habibi, P.W. 2 who has taken names of the present revisionists in his examination-inchief, has summoned the applicants whereas fact of the matter is that P.W.1, Parveen, mother of the deceased has not taken names of any of the present revisionists. It is submitted that even in cross-examination, on 27.08.2015 Habibi has admitted that there was no discussion and decision on the items to be exchanged in marriage and whatever was given by him in the marriage was on his own volition. It has come on record and admitted in cross-examination that none of the relatives of the matrimonial home of the deceased were introduced to this witness i.e. neither at the time of marriage nor subsequently when he had gone to attend last rights of his daughter. Therefore, reading these statements it is submitted that without there being any mention of names of the revisionists and there being no knowledge about any dowry harassment in the hands of such distant relatives i.e. 'Mama' and 'Mausi', the court below has mechanically exercised authority under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and has summoned them.
