JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. and involves a very short question. 2. Daiip Kumar lodged a first information report at police station Sardarshahar on 30.9.1991 to the effect that his sister Baby alias Raju was married to Bhagwana Ram about 91/2 years ago. Sufficient dowry was given but after marriage Bhagwana Ram and Doongarmal harrassea her for dowry. In the year 1984 a cycle as well as some money were given. Again some letters were received to send money and the same was sent by money order. It was alleged that Smt. Raju was beaten and she once came to her brother and showed her injuries to him. One Sohan Lal mediated and Raju was sent to her in-laws house. It was further alleged that once she was administered sleeping pills and when she became unconscious, Raju's daughter informed Mahavir and Mahavir took her to hospital where she was admitted. She was being harassed and pestered by husband and relations of the husband. It is further alleged that Bhagwana Ram kept a tenant in his house named as Nandu. Bhagwana Ram had illicit relations with the wife of Nandu. Smt. Raju was mentally disturbed because of it. She wanted that her husband should not have extra marital affairs and she tried to make her husband realise his fault but he would not budge, therefore, she left the house of her husband and came to her brother on 25.6.1991. She was again sent back to her husband's house where it is alleged that she committed suicide and died on 27.9.1991. 3. Police registered a case under Section 498-A and 306 IPC. After investigation police submitted challan against Bhagwana Ram for offence under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC but submitted final report against Shanti and Dungarmal but the learned Magistrate took cognizance against Smt. Shanti. He thereafter committed the case to the, learned Sessions Judge who framed charge against Smt. Shanti. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.The law has been settled in Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1996(4) SCC page 495 , in which it has been held that the power under Section 209 Cr.RC. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.The law has been settled in Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1996(4) SCC page 495 , in which it has been held that the power under Section 209 Cr.RC. to summon a new offender was not vested with a Magistrate on the plain reading of its text as well as proceedings before him not being an inquiry and material before him not being evidence. He has no such power to add a person as accused under Section 319 Cr.RC. when handling the matter under Section 209 Criminal Procedure Code So the order taking cognizance against the petitioner was illegal in view of Raj Kishore Prasad's case (supra). 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after the case was committed to him, framed charge against the petitioner which is also illegal in view of a judgment of this Court rendered in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 278/95, Loku Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 25.2.1997 , in which it was held that when Police had not forwarded name of the petitioner as accused before Magistrate, he had no power to include his name before committing the case to the learned Sessions Judge and as such when he had no power, commitment proceedings and thereafter all proceedings before the trial court including framing of charge was illegal. 6. I have decided a case today being S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 10/99, Ganesha Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan , in which the same question had arisen and it has been held therein that the order of framing of charge was illegal since commitment itself was without jurisdiction. 7. In view of above, this petition is hereby allowed and the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 4.5.1995 framing charge under Section 306 IPC against Smt. Shanti is set-aside. The learned Sessions Judge will be free if in the course of trial it appears from the evidence that Smt. Shanti has committed any offence, he may proceed against her for the offences which appears to have been committed by her or if he finds that any other person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with accused Bhagwana Ram, he may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.Petition allowed. *******