- (1.) S. R. Bhargava, J. One Saroj Bala, daughter of opposite party Jawahar Lal Bansal, was married to Revisionist No. 1 Rakeah kumar four years before her alleged unnatural death in 1986. Revisionist No. 2 Smt. Brij Rani is the mother of Rakesh Kumar whereas Revisionist No. 3 Smt. Beena is his sister. After the death of Saroj Bala her father sent an application to Chief Minister alleging that Saroj Bala was victim of dowry death at the hands of her husbands and his relations. That application was registered as First Information Report and investigation followed. During investigation it is said neighbours did not support case of dowry death. A dying declaration alleged to be recorded by a Naib Tahsildar also came to light and that too did not support case of dowry death. Police submitted Final Report. Father of deceased Saroj Bala, it is said, filed protest petition. Magistrate recorded statements u/s 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. and summoned the Revisionist for offences under Sec. 302/498-A I. P. C. That summoning order was quashed in writ petition by High Court on the ground that one witness was not examined u/s. 202 Cr. P. C. and the case was remanded to Magistrate for further enquiry.
(2.) WHEN the case was sent back to Magistrate complainant gave up that witness. Learned Magistrate considered arguments advanced on behalf of the complainant and statement recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. and being of the opinion that there is sufficient ground to proceed further summoned the revisionists under Section 204 Cr. P. C. In this revision it has been urged that after protest petition, treated as complaint, Magistrate should have considered the case diary and Dying Declaration also. It was vehemently argued that statements recorded under Section 16: Cr. P. C. and Dying Declaration file. The evidence recorded under Section 200 & 202 Cr. P. C. and they could not be basis for summoning the revisionists. At the stage of Section 204 Cr. P. C. Magistrate has not to meticulously scrutinize the evidence. He has only to be satisfied if there is prima facie case. He has not to examine the question whether the evidence collected during investigation is genuine or not. If the evidence u/s 200 & 202 Cr. P. C. makes out prima facie case Magistrate can summon the accused. In the instant case only the Trial Court will be entitled to examine whether the dying declaration recorded by a Naib Tahsiidar is genuine and voluntary. It will be for the Trial Court to examine the question whether, neighbours made voluntary statements to J. O. or they were shielding their neighbours or were Ignorant of the affairs. At the stage of Section 204 Cr. P. C. no opinion can be expressed on/these/questions.
(3.) REVISION has no force and deserver to be dismissed summarily. But at the same time REVISIONist may be expected to face fair enquiry or trial and not under harassment. After all they have been summoned under Section 204 Cr. P. C. on a complaint. Processes, as laid down in Section 90 Cr. P. C. have been issued to them under Chapter VI of Cr. P. C. Hence disposing of his revision finally I direct the REVISIONist to appear before the Magistrate concerned who shall not take them in judicial custody until commitment. On their appearance Magistrate shall require them to furnish bonds with or without sureties, as laid down in Section 88 Cr. P. C. for their future attendance during enquiry. Learned Magistrate shall take case to commit the revisionist to Sessions, if he deems necessary, in the early part of the day say at 10. 30 or 11 a. m. REVISIONists shall be at liberty to apply for bail to the Sessions Judge on the same day. It they do so Sessions Judge shall dispose of their bail application on the same day, keeping in view that it is a complaint case. Further for one month non-bailable warrants shall not be executed Copy of this order be issued to the counsel of the Revisionists within 24 hours. Revision Dismissed. .;