A.K. MATHUR, J.—This is a revision petition filed against the order passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore dated 24.1.87. whereby the learned Magistrate has accepted the final report submitted by the police in F.I.R. No. 3/86 u/sec. 326, 342 and 307 I.P.C. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition, are that a first information report was filed on 6.01.1986 at police station Cheetalwana by Ashu that his daughter Nenu was married to the non-petitioner Khetaram four years ago and thereafter she remained at her father-in-laws house. On 16.08.1985, non petitioner no. 2 to 6 conspired and set her on fire after throwing kerosene on her. Thereafter, she was taken to Dhanera Hospital (Gujarat) by her husbands elder brother for treatment. When Ashu father of Mst. Nenu came to know about the whole incident, he immediately rushed to the hospital and found that Mst. Nenu had a number of burn injuries on her body, at that time she refreined from telling anything as she was under the fear of her in-laws. After two months Nenu was discharged from the hospital and she was taken to the house of her father-in-law. After that her husband left for Bombay and she was again maltreated by her mother-in-law and thrown out. She came to her fathers house and narrated the whole story to her father. Ashu father of Mst. Nenu thereafter requested her in-laws for amicable settlement but without any result. Thereafter, a first information report was filed at police station Cheetalwana on 6.01.1986. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of Mst. Nenu, her father Ashu, Thakra and Achla. The statement of Mst. Nenu was also recorded under section 164 Cr. P.C. on 4.02.1986. After close of investigation the police filed a final report and did not believe the story given out by Mst. Nenu and supported by Thakra and Achla. Police submitted the final report and the learned Magistrate accepted the same and discharged the accused. Hence the present revision petition by complainant. 3. I have heard Mr. R.K. Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent and Mr. S. M. Singhvi, Public Prosecutor, for the State and have also gone through the record. Hence the present revision petition by complainant. 3. I have heard Mr. R.K. Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondent and Mr. S. M. Singhvi, Public Prosecutor, for the State and have also gone through the record. I am constraint to say that the action of the Magistrate in accepting the final report in the present circumstances was wholly unwarranted, casual and without application of mind. The only reason given by the learned Magistrate while accepting the final report was delay in filing the first information report at police Station Cheetalwana. The delay has been explained by Mst. Nenu & Ashu. Mst. Nenu in her statement has deposed that she was kept in the hospital at Dhanera as an in-door patient for two months and thereafter, she was discharged from the hospital and brought back to her in-laws house at Halibab. Thereafter, her husband left for Bombay and her mother-in-law again started maltreating her and threw her out and then she came to her fathers house. Ashu, father of Mst. Nenu, also tried to bring about any amicable settlement and sent the messages to her daughters in-law s house and consulted the persons of community, so that the matter can be settled down amicably but this could not be done. Therefore he filed the first information report at police station Cheetalwana. 4. I have gone through the statement of Mst. Nenu injured, Ashu father, Thakra, Achla and some more witnesses and also gone through the injury report. Mst. Nenu in her earlier statement, she has stated that while she was preparing the food, some kerosene sprinkled on her body and caught fire. But in her subsequent statement, she has deposed that in the morning of 6.08.1985, she was taken by her monther in-law for easing out and when she was in the field her husband Khetaram, her Jeth Bhagwana, Jethani Dami wife of Bhagwana came there and her husband Khsteram & Mst. Dami tied odani on her mouth and her hands were also tied with a laihi. Dami tied odani on her mouth and her hands were also tied with a laihi. Thereafter Dami sprinkled kerosene on her and her Jeth Bhagwana set fire by match and she started burning, as a result of burning she became unconscious after some time when the odani tied on her mouth loosen she shouted for help and on hearing her cries Thakra Bishnoi and Achla Jat came there and it is stated that thereafter she lost her consciousness. It is alleged that she got consciousness after five days at the hospital at Dhanera. This version of Mst. Nenu has been supported by Thakra and Achla In their statements u/sec. 161 The police has summarily discarded these statements while giving the final report. In this state of affair, I am constraint to hold that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind properly, while accepting the final report. More so, looking to the present situation, the charge u/sec. 498 A I.P.C. is also prima facie made in the present case. But unfortunately the learned Magistrate did not care to look into the matter from that angle also. It is true that while accepting the final report, the learned Magistrate has discretion, but he has to exercise that discretion independently on the basis of the evidence on recored and should not swade away with the finding of the police. In the present case, on the narration of the facts, as mentioned above, the learned Magistrate even did not care to appreciate a plausible explanation submitted by Ashu for the delay in filing the first information report. He has also not carefully examined the statement of Mst. Nenu recorded u/ss. 161, 164 Cr. PC. and also did not look into the statements of Thakra and Achla recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, I am constraint to say that the learned Magistrate has not properly applied his mind. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate, accepting the final report, dated 24.1.87 is set aside. The learned Magistrate should take cognizance and proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. 5. The revision petition is allowed. The record, which has been received, be sent back to the trial court forthwith.