ATMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above-mentioned cross-petitions have been preferred by the parties to Cr. Case No. 188/94 - State v. Atma Ram, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar. They are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The facts. Deceased-Vijay Laxmi was married to Atma Ram on 18-11-1991. She met untimely death on 15-8-1993. Mahendra Singh (father of the deceased) lodged first information report with the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar on 30-8-1993, on which a case u/S. 304-B, I.P.C. was registered. After the completion of the investigation the police gave final report. The Judicial Magistrate vide order dt. 9-12-1994 refused to accept the final report and took cognizance against Atma Ram, husband of the deceased u/Ss. 498-A and 323, IPC. In the first information report the allegations had been made against the parents of Atma Ram also but the Magistrate did not take cognizance against them. The order dt. 9-12-1994 was challenged by both the parties before the Addl. Sessions Judge. Mahendra Singh's case before the Addl. Sessions Judge was that cognizance ought to have been taken against Shiv Lal and Asi Bai also and against Atma Ram u/s. 304-B, IPC. Atma Ram in his revision pleaded that cognizance ought not to have been taken against him. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dt. 1-12-1997 dismissed the revision preferred by Atma Ram but allowed the revision of Mahendra and directed

(3.) Mr. Shishodia, learned Sr. Advocate contended that there is no material on record on which cognizance for the offence u/S. 304-B, IPC could be taken against Atma Ram. He pointed out that in the enquiry u/S. 174, Cr. P.C. held by the S.D.M., Mahendra Singh had clearly admitted he did not suspect foul play in the death of his daughter as she had not complained against her husband and in-laws. His submission was that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ought not to have sent back the case to the Magistrate for further enquiry.