JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - This revision is directed against the order dated 19.9.1998, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khetri, for not framing the charge under. Section 302 against the accused non-petitioner No. 1. 2. The synopsis of this case are as under :That Modu Ram, father of the deceased Manju, lodged a report at Police Station Singhana, alleging therein that he got his daughter Manju married on 23rd of April 1985, with Dara Singh, Non-Petitioner. But his daughter Manju was harassed for dowry and later on her murder was committed by Non-Petitioner Dara Singh and his parents. 3. On this report, Police registered a case for offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and after usual investigation, filed a challan against accused Dara Singh for the same offence i.e. under Sections 498A and 304B IPC, before the concerned Magistrate. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to Sessions Court, where ultimately, learned Sessions Judge, did not frame the charge against this accused for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B, but framed the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC while passing the impugned order. Hence this revision. 4. Mr. Kaushik submits that in this matter Police has not investigated the matter fairly and has not recorded the statements correctly. In this matter statements of two witnesses have been recorded in the lower court. He simply submits that after recording of statements of some important witnesses, he may be allowed to file an application before the lower court for adding the charge under Sections 302 and 304B of IPC. 5. Heard learned Public Prosecutor. 6. In this matter, after framing the charge, lower court has recorded statements of two witnesses. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kaushik, does not want to press this revision. Hence the same is rejected as not pressed. But after recording of statements of some material witnesses, prosecution would be at liberty to file an application under Section 216 Cr.PC. for adding appropriate charge. It is made clear that if such an application is filed by prosecution, lower court would dispose of that application according to law. 7. With these observations the revision petition is dismissed. 8. Record of the lower court be sent back immediately alongwith a copy of this order.Revision Dismissed as above. *******