Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 12.10.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.111 of 2002 against the order dated 17.07.2000 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application of the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioners and Ms.Neelam Shukla as additional accused to face trial.

2. In the charge-sheet, names of the petitioners were not mentioned though they were named in the FIR. P.W.-1, Geeta Dwivedi was examined before the Court, in which she said that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and the petitioners, who are sister-in-law and brother-in-law of Geeta Dwivedi, were not satisfied with the dowry given by her parents and they used to torture her for dowry demand.

3. Learned Trial Court in its order dated 17.07.2000 observed that the witness did not say that the petitioners were living in the same house and also did not mention that what dowry item was being demanded by the accused. Learned trial Court considered the evidence available on record and found that the investigating officer has rightly concluded that there was no cogent and credible evidence available against the petitioners to file charge-sheet against them. Learned trial Court, therefore, rejected the said application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution for summoning the petitioners and Ms.Neelam Shukla as additional accused.

4. Learned Revisional Court only on the basis of statement of P.W.-1 (Geeta Dwivedi) in which she said that the petitioners also used to torture and harass the victim for dowry demand, found that order passed by learned trial Court is unsustainable and allowed the revision. Learned revisional court itself issued summons for trial of the petitioners as additional accused.

5. It is well settled law that for summoning a person as additional accused, there must be evidence which should be cogent and credible. Trial Court while summoning a person as additional accused must record its satisfaction of more than prima facie case against a person who is being summoned as additional accused. Order of the Revisional Court does not throw light that what was the material considered by it to record satisfaction of more than prima facie case against the petitioners for summoning them as additional accused to face trial whereas learned trial Court in its order dated 17.07.2000 found that there was no cogent and credible evidence available against the petitioners to summon them as additional accused and only one sentence was stated by P.W.-1 that the petitioners also used to demand dowry and harass the victim. This Court finds that approach of the learned Revisional Court is unsustainable and not in accordance with law.

6. Considering the aforesaid fact and also taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are living separately, petitioner No.1 is married sister-inlaw of Geeta Dwivedi, order passed by learned Revisional Court is unsustainable.

7. The petition is allowed. Consequently impugned order dated 12.10.2004 passed by learned Revisional Court is hereby quashed.