JUDGMENT 1. - This order will dispose of two criminal petitions. S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 545/2000 Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Anr. is a petition Under section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 6.12.1999 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar in FIR No. 532/98 the application of the petitioners was dismissed and the application of the complainant was allowed and the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offences Under sections 498-A & 406 IPC. They are husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased. S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 911/1999 has been preferred by Laxmi Narain against the same order by which he rejected the cognizance order against non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Neem Ka Thana vide order dated 26.5.99 in relation to FIR No. 532/98. Since both the matters relate to the same FIR and the same order, I have heard these petitions together. 2. I have heard learned counsel for all the parties in detail and have gone through the entire record of the trial court. 3. Briefly stated, on 23.12.98 Laxmi Narain lodged a report at Police Station Neem Ka Thana stating that his daughter Leelawati was married to Ashok Kumar on 5.6.98. He gave large dowry as per his status. Immediately before the marriage when ceremony of `Lagun' was performed, a scooter was given but the father of the boy Dhumi Ram Yadav, brother Dr. Rameshwar Prasad, Narain Ram and the boy Ashok Kumar himself, boy's mother Sarbati, aunty Tarawati, sister Vimlesh, brother Surendra and the cousin brother Peeyush and the grand-mother Nanchi became angry and told that the father of the girl is bring a Mahendra jeep in the `Lagun'. At that time 25-35 persons including Ramswaroop, Man Singh, Raghunath, Dr. Jagdish Prasad, Mussadilal were present who persuaded the boy as well as his relations to accept `Lagun'. Then quite a good number of gold and silver ornaments and the cash Rs. 11,011/- was given. It is further alleged in the report that a doctor who is a relation of the boy also asked to deduct the price of the scooter and then give a jeep at the time of marriage. Then quite a good number of gold and silver ornaments and the cash Rs. 11,011/- was given. It is further alleged in the report that a doctor who is a relation of the boy also asked to deduct the price of the scooter and then give a jeep at the time of marriage. The first information report mentions a full paragraph of the articles given at the time of marriage and it is stated that a very huge amount was spent in the marriage. It is further alleged that on 3.6.98, the elder brother of Laxmi Narain died. However, the marriage was performed on 5.6.98 but Mahendra jeep could not be given at the time of marriage, therefore, the husband of the girl as well as all other relations became unhappy and it was said that the girl would not be taken but after due persuasion of relations the girl could go with them. The brother of the girl Daya Ram was also sent but as soon as the girl reached her in law's house, Dhumi Ram, Narain, Dr. Rameshwar Prasad, lady inmates of the house including Vimlesh all cried and said that jeep was not given at the time of marriage and that the boy was married in a family of beggars. Immediately after the marriage, Leelawati was pestered and it is alleged that Ashok Kumar and Vimlesh started beating her. A letter to that effect was written by Leelawati on 7.6.98. It is further stated in the first information report that Daya Ram unfolded the whole story on 8.6.98. Some relations of the girl including Mussadilal and Ramswaroop went to her in-law's of the girl. At that time, Leelawati was in her-in-laws house who was taken back by Laxmi Narain, the father of the girl. The husband of the girl as well as Dr. Rameshwar Prasad and Dhumi Ram came and took away Leelawati and told that in case the jeep is given then only Leelawati would be kept otherwise the girl would be sent back. Thereafter, Dhumi Ram, Ashok Kumar, Sarbati, Tarawati, Dr. Rameshwar Prasad, Narain, Vimlesh, Surendra, Peeyush and Nanchi all started giving beatings to Leelawati. On 11.6.98, Leelawati again wrote a letter to her parents. Thereafter, Dhumi Ram, Ashok Kumar, Sarbati, Tarawati, Dr. Rameshwar Prasad, Narain, Vimlesh, Surendra, Peeyush and Nanchi all started giving beatings to Leelawati. On 11.6.98, Leelawati again wrote a letter to her parents. However, she stayed in her in-law's house for about 10 days during which she was pestered and given beatings and it is further alleged that some blank papers were got signed from her. After that the girl was given beatings and was shunted out. Ashok Kumar, husband of Leelawati left Leelawati near the house of her parents. She was not allowed to bring her `stridhan' and was asked that as soon as the jeep was arranged, the husband and in- laws may be informed. It was further stated in the first information report that though the matter related to the month of June, 1998, yet the relations were trying to patch up the matter and hence the report was lodged with delay. After lodgement of the report, a case Under sections 498-A & 406 IPC was registered, investigated and police submitted challan against Ashok Kumar, Dhumi Ram. Dr. Rameshwar Prasad, Sarbati, Tarawati and Vimlesh for offences Under sections 498-A & 406 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against them. It were Ashok Kumar, Dhumi Ram and Sarbati who challenge the order of cognizance before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. On the other hand, complainant filed an application before the trial court on 20.3.99 with a prayer that Narain Ram, Surendra, Peeyush and Nanchi were also involved and there was ample evidence against these four persons and that it was with the connivance of the police that challan was not submitted against these four persons. Hence cognizance should be taken. Rameshwar Prasad also filed an application on 17.5.99 in which it was stated that he was Medical Officer in hospital and his wife Tarawati and both of them have been falsely implicated while Dhumi Ram was a teacher and his wife Sarbati is an old woman and no case was made out against them. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 26.5.99 took cognizance against Narain, Surendra, Peeyush and Nanchi and summoned them by a bailable warrant. Aggrieved with that order an application was filed before the High Court which was later on converted in S.B. Cr. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 26.5.99 took cognizance against Narain, Surendra, Peeyush and Nanchi and summoned them by a bailable warrant. Aggrieved with that order an application was filed before the High Court which was later on converted in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 426/98 and was sent for the decision to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana maintaining that the same was not maintainable before the High Court, The complainant has challenged the order in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 911/1999 by which Rameshwar Prasad, Tarawati, Vimlesh, Narain Ram, Surendra, Peeyush and Nanchi have been exonerated. 4. Learned counsel for accused petitioners Ashok Kumar, Dhumi Ram and Sarbati submitted that Leelawati was mentally retarded and that this fact was hided but when the accused persons came to know about it, a divorce petition was filed and as soon as it came to the knowledge of the father of the girl, he lodged the report with police. He submitted that the petition for divorce Under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was submitted before the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur by Ashok Kumar stating the details of her being a mentally retarded woman. An application has also been filed to appoint her guardian she being insane. It was urged by the learned counsel in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 545/2000 that the case has been falsely cooked up because of the fact that a divorce petition was filed. Even otherwise according to the learned counsel there is no evidence against the petitioners Ashok Kumar, Dhumi Ram and Sarbati worth the name to involve them in the matter. This has been vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. 5. On the other hand, so far as S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 911/99 is concerned, learned counsel for Laxmi Narain submitted that there was ample evidence against the 8 persons named therein but even then the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed error in allowing the petition and setting aside the order taking cognizance against Rameshwar Prasad, Tarawati, Vimlesh, Narain Ram, Surendra, Peeyush and Nanchi. It has been submitted on their behalf that they have no concern with the incident and they were falsely roped in. It has been submitted on their behalf that they have no concern with the incident and they were falsely roped in. Learned Public Prosecutor confronted with such a situation submitted that he supports the challan and submitted that those persons against whom challan was submitted were such persons against whom a case was made out under both the sections and consequently, proper orders may be passed. 6. I have gone through the entire evidence. There is no doubt that a divorce petition was filed by Ashok Kumar on 10.12.98 against Smt. Leelawati before the Family Court, Jaipur alleging that Leelawati was mentally sick. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused persons that though Leelawati was staying with her parents for quite some time yet the first information report was lodged after the petition for divorce was moved. According to them, therefore, it means that the case is a counter blast and has been cooked up against the petitioners. It has been submitted that totally a false report was lodged and the order taking cognizance was challenged before the High Court and this Court directed on 30.6.99 that the order may be challenged before the Court of Sessions. It has been submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana did not find case against the co-accused persons but dismissed the revision petition of Ashok Kumar, Dhumi Ram and Sarbati which is illegal and is not sustainable as Leelawati suffered from mental disorder which was incurable and that the court below failed to consider the material aspects of the case that report was not lodged till 23.12.98 and has been lodged only after filing the petition for divorce. This fact itself goes to show that a false case has been foisted. Reliance has been placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni, AIR 2000 SC 2583 in which a case under the Prevension of Corruption Act, charges were quashed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. This fact itself goes to show that a false case has been foisted. Reliance has been placed on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mohan Lal Soni, AIR 2000 SC 2583 in which a case under the Prevension of Corruption Act, charges were quashed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Supreme Court after taking into consideration the whole earlier decision was of the view that if the court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be framed and in case the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross- examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence, then charge can be quashed. It has been submitted that there is no valid ground to maintain the charge against the petitioners. From the evidence on record it is found that jeep was constantly being demanded and the complainant wanted to harass the accused petitioners who have filed the petition No. 545/2000. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are letters written by Smt. Leelawati which speak volumes against Ashok Kumar, Dhumi Ram and Sarbati as well as against persons against whom challan were submitted. But the learned counsel for the accused persons has submitted that the letters might have been cooked up and they do not make out any offence against the accused persons. I will not like to say anything about the authenticity of the letters at this stage but there appears to be no reason why they should not be prima facie accepted to be correct when they bear the seal of the post office and are inland letters written in the hand of Leelawati herself. Their probative value will be seen only after the evidence is led by the prosecution and not at this stage. So far as delay in lodging the report is concerned that can also be looked into at the time of trial and not at this stage in view of the explanation given by the prosecution. There is controversy about the mental health of Leelawati as the complainant party says that she was alright and documents to that effect are also available on record. There is controversy about the mental health of Leelawati as the complainant party says that she was alright and documents to that effect are also available on record. So far as petition No. 545/2000 is concerned, I find that the courts below have not committed any mistake with regard to Ashok Kumar, Dhumi Ram and Sarbati and the order taking cognizance against them appears to be based on legal and valid evidence. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge exonerated Rameshwar Prasad, Tarawati, Vimlesh, Narain Ram, Surendra, Peeyush and Nanchi vide his order dated 6.12.99 and the complainant has challenged their exoneration. It has been submitted that there was ample evidence against them and that the learned trial court had taken cognizance against Narain Ram, Surendra, Peeyush and Nanchi on 26.5.99 which is wrongly set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It has been submitted that the order is not sustainable as the learned Judge failed to consider the material aspects of the case and law relating to cognizance. It has been submitted that at the stage of cognizance, the court has to see prima facie if a case is made out from the entire evidence and the entire evidence should not be discussed on the merits and demerits and when the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not issue notice of the petition to the complainant, only on this ground the order should be set aside as the learned Additional Sessions Judge acted in haste. As I have stated earlier, I have gone through the entire evidence in this case and can safely say that Rameshwar, Tarawati, Vimlesh, Narain Ram, Surendra, Peeyush and Nanchi are such persons who are distant relations of the husband Ashok Kumar and these days, as is observed by the Supreme Court in some judgments, there is a tendency to over implicate even the distant relations. The letter of Leelawati dated 7.6.98 mentions that it was Ashok Kumar who gave her beatings and told her that since the jeep was not given, his uncle was very much angry. In the letter dated 11.6.98, she has stated that her husband's sister, mother and father were harassing her. She has also mentioned about the doctor but it is found that the doctor was not residing with the family of the husband. In the letter dated 11.6.98, she has stated that her husband's sister, mother and father were harassing her. She has also mentioned about the doctor but it is found that the doctor was not residing with the family of the husband. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered these letters and the other evidence and came to the conclusion that if there is dissatisfaction because of the performance of the marriage as alleged, it would not amount to cruelty to Leelawati. As stated earlier, when there is a tendency of over implication and there is evidence to the effect that the gifts given in the marriage were not with these 7 persons who are distant relations of the husband, I am of the view that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge should be maintained. 9. In view of above, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 545/2000 filed by Ashok Kumar, Dhumi Ram and Sarbati is hereby dismissed and S.B Cr. Revision Petition No. 911/1999 filed by Laxmi Narain has no force and is hereby dismissed.Revision Against Cognizance and Revision Against Non- Cognizance both dismissed. *******