1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT LAXMINARAYAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No.190 of 2000 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated April 7, 2000 of Additional Sessions Judge Dholpur in Criminal revision No. 90 of 2000 (95/98) whereby the revision petition filed by the accused respondents against the order of cognizance dated July 9, 1998 of ACJM Dholpur in Criminal case No. 285 of 1998 taking cognizance under sections 498 A and 406 IPC was set aside. Date of Order : April 9, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Anil Jain, for the petitioner Mr. M.K. Kaushik, for non-petitioners No.2 to 6. Mr. Piyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT : The complainant petitioner Laxminarayan filed this revision petition against the order dated April 7, 2000 of Additional Sessions Judge Dholpur in Criminal revision No. 90 of 2000 (95/98) whereby the revision petition filed by the accused 2 respondents against the order of cognizance dted July 9, 1998 of ACJM Dholpur in Criminal case No. 285 of 1998 taking cognizance under sections 498 A and 406 IPC was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant lodged a report on December 9, 1997 with regard to an incident to the effect that the accused respondents are harassing and torturing his daughter for want of dowry. On this report FIR No.274 of 1997 was registered for offence under section 498 A IPC. Since the condition of the daughter of petitioner was not good, she was provided treatment by petitioner at Agra where she died on January 25, 1998. The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint before the Magistrate for offence under sections 323, 498A, 406, 304 B and 120 B IPC. The Magistrate adopted the procedure of section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. recorded the statements of witnesses and vide order dated July 9, 1998 took cognizance of offence under sections 498A and 406 IPC. The accused respondents filed revision petition challenging the order dated July 9, 1998 and the revision court while making meticulous assessment of the material and evidence allowed the revision petition and 3 quashed the order taking cognizance against the accused petitioner. Against this order the present revision petition has been preferred. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 4. Mr. Anil Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the revisional court committed error in quashing the order of cognizance. There is prima facie evidence against the accused respondents to hold that they had committed an offence which is triable. The revisional court has not given cogent and convincing reasons for coming to the conclusion that no case is made out against the accused. 5. Mr. Pradeep Srimal, Public Prosecutor and Mr. M.K. Kaushik, learned counsel for the accused respodnents opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the trial court rightly quashed the order taking cognizance against the accused respondents. The revisional court held that the Magistrate had violated the provisions of section 203 Cr.P.C. The revisional court on the basis of a case reported in 1995 Cr.L.R. 483 4 wherein vioation of section 203 was made by the Magistrate and hence quashed the order taking cognizance. Present case is also similar to the case reported in 1995 Cr.L.R.(supra). In the police report it was found that the deceased died on account of failure of kidney. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the revisional court. 6. I have gone through the entire material available on record and the order passed by the trial court and the revisional court. In my opinion the order passed by the revisional court is just and proper. It is an admitted fact that the deceased died on account of failure of kidney. 7. For these reasons, the revision petition is rejected. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/