- (1.) Heard Mr. Brijesh Sahai for the applicants, Mr. Devesh Vikram for the respondent No. 2 and the learned AGA for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
(2.) This is a petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing the summoning order dated 19.6.2010 and the proceedings of the criminal case No. 3767 of 2009, State v. Arvind, under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Jaunpur.
(3.) Mr. Brijesh Sahai submitted that the investigating agency submitted a final report in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, against which the respondent No. 2 filed a protest petition. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate partly rejected the final report and summoned the applicants with regard to the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, vide his order dated 3.1.2008, but approved the final report with no.2 preferred criminal revision No. 131 of 2008 in the court of Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, which was heard and disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jaunpur vide his judgment and order dated 24.4.2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision and quashed the order dated 3.1.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate with regard to the offence under section 304-B IPC and remanded the matter to reconsider the final report. After the remand, the Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Jaunpur perused the entire materials and found that a prima facie case for summoning the applicants under Section 304-B IPC was also made out. Accordingly the learned Magistrate passed the summoning order dated 19.6.2010 issuing processes to the applicants under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The summoning order dated 19.6.2010 has been impugned in this petition. It was further submitted that there is no evidence that the death of the deceased was unnatural because the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, opined that there was no ante mortem injury and cause of death was not ascertainable. He, however, preserved the viscera for chemical analysis. No poison was found in the viscera on chemical analysis. Mr. Sahai further submitted that death of the deceased occurred due to snake bite. The materials on record do not make out any case of unnatural death, therefore, the offence under Section 304-B IPC is not made out.;