S.N.H.ZAIDI, J. - (1.) BOTH these revisions have been directed against the order dated 31.7.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magis­trate, Jaunpur in Misc. Case No. 250/2004, Smt. Shakura Begum v. State and others whereby final report No. 4 of 2004 dated 4.8.2004 filed in respect of case Crime No. C-1/2004 under sections 498-A, 304-B, 201, I.P.C. of police station Sureri, Jaunpur has been rejected and the protest petition dated 28.2.2005 filed against the same has been accepted and 12 persons, including the re­visionists of both the revisions, have been summoned to face trial under sections 498-A, 304-B and 201, I.P.C.
(2.) THE facts which are relevant for the purpose of these revisions, in brief, are that Smt. Fatima D/o Smt. Shakura Begum was married with Munawar on 15.6.1996 and she died on 11.5.2003 at her matrimo­nial home. On 14.5.2003 an application was given by Aziz, the father of the deceased, to S.S.R Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) against 12 persons with the allegations that after the marriage Smt. Fatima was sub­jected to cruelty at the hands of her hus­band and his relatives including his par­ents, brothers and sisters for not bringing sufficient dowry and due to non-fulfilment of the demand of Rs. 10,000, a colour TV, a golden ring and a Tape recorder she had been killed by them as well as by their neighbours and friends. On that applica­tion, an inquiry was held by the CO. of Madhiyahun, Jaunpur who had submitted his report dated 6.2.2004 to the S.S.P. Jaun­pur with his findings that Smt. Fatima had died due to illness on 10.6.2003 and the parties had arrived at a compromise which was filed at police station Sureri, Jaunpur and was entered at G.D. No. 9 dated 11.6.2003 and the allegations in the complaint are false. Smt. Shakura Begum moved an application under section 156(3), Cr.P.C, on 20.3.2004 before Additional C.J.M. about Court No. 16, Jaunpur against all the 12 persons with the same allegations as were made by her husband Aziz in the aforesaid application dated 14.5.2003. The learned Magistrate allowed that applica­tion and ordered for registration of the re­port and investigation of the case. The report was lodged at Crime No. C-1/2004, under sections 498-A, 304-B and 201, I.P.C. and was investigated upon by the police. The I.O. submitted the final report, against which Smt. Shakura Begum filed protest petition alongwith her affidavit as well as the affidavits of two witnesses. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur accepted the protest petition and after rejecting the final report summoned the revisionists for trial under the aforesaid sections by the impugned order dated 31.3.2006, which has been challenged in these revisions. I have heard the learned Counsels for the revisionist of both the revisions and opposite party No, 2 and the learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
(3.) THE revisionists of Revision No. 5685 of 2006 are admittedly not the rela­tives of the husband of the deceased and have been shown as his neighbours and friends and, according to the FIR, the alle­gations of demand of Rs. 10,000/- one col­our TV etc. and subjecting Smt. Fatima to cruelty are against her husband Munawar, parents-in-law and sister-in-law Guddan and not against the said revisionists. No one can be an accused of an offence of sec­tion 498-A or 304-B, I.P.C. if he is not a relative of the husband. The Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, has not considered this aspect of the matter. The summoning order in respect of the revi­sionists of Revision No. 5685/2006 is, there­fore, bad in law and is liable to be set aside.;