SHRI KANT TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) WITH the consent of the learned Counsel for the par­ties, this revision is disposed of at this stage. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh appear­ing for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the respondent State and pe­rused the record. This is a revision against the order dated 11.6.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat in Misc. case No. 76 of 2010, Vinod Kumar v. Protnod and others, under sections 304-B, 201, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Chhaprauli, District Baghpat.
(2.) IT appears that in case crime No. 582 of 2009, under sections 304-B, 201, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Chhaprauli, District Baghpat, the police submitted a final report, against which the revisionist moved a protest petition. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the protest petition and accepted the final report vide his order dated 11.6.2010, which has been impugned in this revision. It is alleged that the deceased commit­ted suicide by hanging herself. The accused instead of getting a post-mortem examina­tion on the dead body of the deceased, hurriedly disposed of the dead body. The learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that it is a case of unnatural death of the deceased within six years of her marriage in the house of the accused. In my opinion, the revisional Court has no power to make re-appraisal of the evidence and to record its own findings. The learned Counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the allegations of demand of dowry and harassment to the deceased had been made in the F.I.R. Wit­nesses Ompal Singh, Vinod Kumar, Smt. Vimla and Smt. Shimla have supported the F.I.R. version. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate overlooked these statements and accepted the final report merely on the basis of the defence version. It was next submitted that at the stage of considering the final report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not required to consider the defence version At most, he could see the materials col­lected during the investigation to find out whether or not any prima facie case for summoning the accused was made out. If the materials collected during the investi­gation had made a prima facie case, it was open to the learned Chief Judicial Magis­trate to take cognizance of the offences. The prosecution version ought not to have been rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the accused. The learned A.G.A., on the other hand, pointed out that the deceased's step mother, step brother and uncle have stated under section 161 Cr.P.C. that the deceased committed suicide. They had not indicated any overt act or instigation on the part of the accused.
(3.) IN view of the fact that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed a de­tailed order on the basis of the materials on record, I do not find it proper to interfere with the matter, therefore, the revision is dismissed. However, it will be open to the revisionist to file a complaint before the competent Court which shall be dealt with in accordance with law and a proper order thereon shall be passed without being in­fluenced from any of the observations made either by this Court or by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while accepting the final report.;