1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R GUDDI & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.855/2010 under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22.11.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge , Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.28/2009. ............... Date of Order : 18th December, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.Rakesh Arora for the petitioners. Mr. O.P.Singharia, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: The petitioners Guddi, w/o Mahendra Singh and Silo @ Silochna d/o Mahendra Singh b/c Khati r/o village Pacharwali , District Hanumangarh have filed this revision petition under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge , Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, in Sessions Case 2 No.28/2009. The brief facts of the case, for the disposal of this revision petition , are that complainant Bhomraj lodged a FIR against co-accused Sita Ram and the present petitioners for offences punishable under section 498-A and 304 -B IPC. After investigation, police filed challan against Sita Ram and filed negative report qua the present petitioners, for the reason that during the course of investigation, no incriminating evidence came against the petitioners. Cognizance was taken against co-accused Sita Ram and charges for offence under section 304-B and 498-A IPC was also framed. Thereafter the trial commenced. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case. In the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. no incriminating evidence came against the petitioners and negative report was filed against the petitioners by the police. When statements of PW/8 Bhomraj and PW/9 Manju Rani were recorded the allegation against the petitioners was levelled . The complainant filed an application under section 319 Cr.P.C. before the 3 learned trail court stating that since in the statements of PW/8 Bhomraj and PW/9 Manju Rani allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty have been levelled and for that reason Saroj committed suicide, therefore, cognizance may also be taken against them for offences punishable under section 304-B and 498-A IPC. On the aforesaid application, the Learned trial court took cognizance for offences punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and issued non-bailable warrant. Against this, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before this Court and the same was disposed of with the direction to convert the non- bailable warrant to bailable warrant. Vide order dated 22.11.2010 the learned trail court framed charges against the petitioners for offences punishable under section 498-A and 304 -B IPC. Being aggrieved by the said order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge , Bhadra, District Hanumangarh , in Sessions Case No.28/2009. the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the learned tril court is perverse and illegal because there is no evidence against the petitioners to frame the charge under section 498-A and 304-B IPC. 4 Further he contended that the order of the learned trial court is not a speaking one and, therefore, it may be set aside. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that there is sufficient evidence on record to frame the charge against the accused appellant under section 498-A and 304-B IPC. I have perused the record submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On conjoint reading of the First Information Report, and the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., there is sufficient evidence to frame the charge under section 498-A and 304-B IPC and the order dated 22.11.2010 cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or improper. Accordingly, it does not require to be set aside. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of 5 justice. The jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used, merely because the lower court has a wrong view of the law or misappropriated the evidence on record. The controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and it must be exercised in the interest of justice, with regard to all facts and circumstances of each particular case. Interference in exercise of the powers under section 397, read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C., is limited only to exceptional cases, when it is found that order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, or where the trial court has illegally passed the order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. l.george