V.K.BALI, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 24.11.1994 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, discharging the respondent herein, against whom FIR No. 214 dated 4.6.1993 came to be registered under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. A detailed order discharging the respondent was passed. Relevant features of the case, however, need a necessary mention. Sunil Dutt, respondent herein, was forwarded for trial by the Station House Officer, Police Station Central, Chandigarh, on the basis of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 3.6.1994. While considering the question of charge, learned Sessions Judge found that it was a case where dying declaration has since been recorded by Shri Ashwani Kumar, Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh, on the very day when the deceased Madhu Sharma got fire injuries and ultimately died on 4.6.1994. The said dying declaration, as mentioned above, recorded by the Executive Magistrate has been mentioned in the order, which reads thus :- "In that statement, she gave the version to the effect that she was living with her husband, their 10 months old child and his parents were also residing with them and on that night her husband came late from the office. Her husband called her when she became free after seeing a serial on T.V. saying that he will tell her why he comes late but she lost temper and poured kerosene oil over her body and tried to set herself on fire out of fun and her husband did not know that she had poured the kerosene oil and that she had done so just to show off, thinking that her husband will persuade her with love. She never thought that her cloths would catch fire. Her clothes caught fire and her husband tried to put out the same by putting a blanket and raised hue and cry and people gathered and put out the fire. She did not want to die. Her husband and Daddy and others loved her very much."
(2.) THE FIR, however, came to be recorded on the statement of father of deceased Madhu Sharma, which was made before the concerned police officer on 4.6.1994. After taking into consideration the statement of the father of deceased and other relevant factors, learned Sessions Judge held that no case would be made out against the respondent under Section 304-B, 306 or 498-A IPC. This Court after hearing learned counsel representing the petitioner as also perusing the order passed by learned sessions Judge is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by learned Sessions Judge. No merit. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.;