[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1025/2007 DHARAMRAJ @ BUGLI & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE: 23.04.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. H.K. Sharma for the accused-petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bayana, District Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 19/2007, whereby charges for the offences under Sections 302, 302/34 IPC and in the alternative under Sections 304/B and 304-B/34 IPC have been framed against the accused-petitioners. Learned counsel for the accused- petitioners submits that so far as accused- petitioner No.2 Sanjay Kumar is concerned, no case for the offence under Section 304-B IPC is made out against him as he is not relative of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner read over the definition of Section 304-B IPC. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of [2] Dayanand Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2002 WLC(Raj.) UC 89 and in the case of Gopal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001 WLC(Raj.) UC 63. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the impugned order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the Court below. So far as petitioner No.1 Dharamraj @ Bugli is concerned, charges have rightly been framed by the trial Court vide order impugned dated 24.08.2007 as the offences are made out against him being husband of the deceased. Therefore, the order impugned dated 24.08.2007 passed by the trial Court, so far as petitioner No.1 Dharamraj @ Bugli is concerned, requires no interference whatsoever by this Court and the revision petition as regards accused- petitioner No.1 Dharamraj @ Bugli fails and the same stands dismissed. So far as accused-petitioner No.2 Sanjay Kumar is concerned, in view of the ratio decided by this Court and as per the settled preposition of law, this Court deem it proper to remand the matter back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication whether the offence under Section 304-B, 304-B/34 IPC is made out against the petitioner No.2 Sanjay Kumar or not, and shall pass fresh order to this effect after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties. [3] With these observations, the criminal revision petition stands partly allowed so far as petitioner No.2 Sanjay Kumar is concerned. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/