Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner -Ill Ranchi in S.T. No. 32 of 2014, whereby she rejected the application of the petitioners filed under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. At the outset, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to some mistake in the court below, instead of filing an application under Sec. 228 of the Cr.P.C., an application under Sec. 227 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed. Thus, he prayed that the said application be treated as an application filed under Sec. 228 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that from the materials available on record, it appears that no offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code made out. He further submits that at best, prima facie, offence under Ss. 341, 323, 498 -A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act made out, which are triable by a Court of Magistrate. Under the said circumstance, the Sessions Judge ought to have transferred the case in the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate for trial. It is submitted that in the First Information Report, it is alleged that petitioners had poured kerosene oil on the body of the opposite party No. 2, but they have not put fire on her body. This itself shows that petitioners had no intention to commit murder of opposite party No. 2. Accordingly, it is submitted that no offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code made out. It is further submitted that the learned court below in a mechanical manner has come to the conclusion that offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code made out.
(2.) Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the First Information Report.
(3.) In the First Information Report, the only allegation against these petitioners is that some before, they had poured kerosene oil on the body of the opposite party No. 2 and tried to put fire on her body. But there is nothing in the First Information Report to show that in what way they have admitted to put fire on the body of the opposite party No. 2. It further appears that even after the said incident, the opposite party No. 2 remain in the house of the accused persons (petitioners), but in spite of that they have not killed her. This prima facie shows that petitioners had no intention to commit murder of the opposite party No. 2, because if they would have such intention, there is no impediment to execute such intention. From perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned court below had not considered this aspect of the matter. Under the said circumstance, I allow this application and set aside the impugned order dated 4 -8 -2014 and direct the court below to reconsider the matter in the light of the facts and circumstances available in the case diary and pass order in accordance with law.;