JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the eight accused persons against an order of cognizance under Sections 498-A and 306 of the I.RC. by the Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Smt. Sharda Devi D/s. OShanker Lal r/o. Javar Mines, was married to the accused Mohan Lal some time in the year, 1991. On 31.5.99, Smt. Sharda was admitted at Rishabhdev Hospital with burns and the police was informed. Her statement (dying declaration) was recorded in the hospital, soon after mid-night and she stated that she was a mental patient for the last about 4 months and in the morning, she herself poured kerosene on her person and got alighted with the help of a match-box. She further stated that her four years old daughter Neelu @ Sheetala was present at the time of the incident. She stated that her husband was away at Jaipur for the last about one month. At the end, she stated that out of her own volition, she has committed suicide. Her daughter Neelu @ Sheetala was also present in the hospital and the A.S.I. Takhat Singh recorded her statement as well. She stated that she was a student of Class I and her mother, in the morning, herself poured kerosene on her and ignited herself with the help of a match-box. The two statements along with a covering letter were forwarded by Takhat Singh to Police Station, Rishabhdev and the S.H.O. registered a case under Section 309 of the I.RC. against Smt. Sharda Devi. After 10-11 days, Smt. Sharda succumbed to the burn injuries on 11.6.99. Consequently, an F.R. was filed by the police in the case registered under Section 309 of the I.RC. 3. While the F.R. was pending with the Magistrate concerned, Shanker Lal, the father of the deceased Sharda, on 26.11.99, lodged a protest petition in the said Court and complained that he reached the hospital forthwith, but was never allowed to meet Sharda Devi, till her death. It was mentioned that the police acted in a partisan way and the dying declaration was not certified or verified by any Doctor of the hospital. A prayer was made that a case under Sections 302, 306, 120-B and 201 of the I.P.C. be registered against Mohan Lal, Kamla, Gobi Lal, Lalita Devi, Bheru Lal, Nathu Lal and Raj Kumar. It was mentioned that the police acted in a partisan way and the dying declaration was not certified or verified by any Doctor of the hospital. A prayer was made that a case under Sections 302, 306, 120-B and 201 of the I.P.C. be registered against Mohan Lal, Kamla, Gobi Lal, Lalita Devi, Bheru Lal, Nathu Lal and Raj Kumar. The learned Court treated the application of Shanker Lal as protest petition and went on to record the statements of Shanker Lal (under Section 200, Cr.RC.), and his wife Smt. Velu Devi (under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 25.8.2001 and cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the I.RC. was taken. Consequently, this revision petition has been filed by Mohan, Geba, Bheru Lal, Nathu Lal, Leela, Kamla, Shanta and Raj Kumar. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record of the Judicial Magistrate, Kherwara and I find it difficult to sustain the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. As pointed out earlier, PW 1 Shanker Lal and his wife Velu Devi were examined by the Magistrate and the impugned order was passed. It is not in dispute that Shanker Lal and Velu Devi are residents of a distant place (Javar mines) and they were nowhere near the deceased on 31.5.99 or immediately before that. Thus, they are not expected to know as to what exactly happened on 31.5.99 or soon before it. Thus, their testimony cannot become a basis for taking cognizance for the offence under Section 306 of the I.RC. The record of the Magistrate shows that the dying declaration of Smt. Sharda Devi was recorded without any loss of time and she cieariy stated that the suicide was voluntary and was committed because of her long illness. Dr. C.K. Ametha has recorded that the statement was recorded in his presence. Moreover, the statement of Neelu @ Sheetala was recorded, in which she has also stated the same thing as stated by her mother. There was no reason to disbelieve these two statements. Dr. C.K. Ametha has recorded that the statement was recorded in his presence. Moreover, the statement of Neelu @ Sheetala was recorded, in which she has also stated the same thing as stated by her mother. There was no reason to disbelieve these two statements. Further, the statements of Bhagwati Lal Bunkar, Smt. Ratan Bai Bunkar, Smt. Bhagwati Devi Bunkar, who were the neighbours of the deceased, were recorded and they all stated that it was a case of voluntary suicide and there was no abetment by any of the accused persons. The three witnesses have stated that when they enquired from Sharda about her burns, she stated unmistakably that on account of the long illness, she was disgusted and thus, wanted to end her life. The learned Magistrate has given a complete go-by to this piece of evidence and has passed an order which does not speak well of him. 6. As pointed out earlier, the incident was dated 31.5.99. The deceased survived up-to 11.6.99. No. F.I.R. was lodged by the father during this period. Even subsequently, never any F.I.R. was filed, nor any complaint was filed in the Court prior to 26.11.99. From the protest application dated 26.11.99, it appears that in the typed version, neither the accused persons were named, nor any allegations were specified against them. The application evidently seems to have been drafted by some law knowing person, because it has taken exception to the fact that the FIR was lodged by A.S.I. Takhat Singh and the case was subsequently investigated by the same person. Still, the accused were not named in the typed version and names have been subsequently inserted by hand. In para Gh of the application, there is an allegation to the effect that the complainant Shanker Lal was not allowed to meet his daughter for 10-11 days while she was alive as there was a conspiracy between the accused persons and the police. However, in his sworn testimony, Shanker Lal has stated that he was present in the hospital during treatment for 12 days and the in-laws were absent from the hospital, leaving Sharda alone there. It is not in dispute that pursuant to an FIR of attack, a case under Sections 323, 453 and 307/34 of the I.RC. was registered against Shanker Lal and his co-accused persons and they were arrested by the police in connection with the same. It is not in dispute that pursuant to an FIR of attack, a case under Sections 323, 453 and 307/34 of the I.RC. was registered against Shanker Lal and his co-accused persons and they were arrested by the police in connection with the same. It appears that because of this ill-will, the application dated 26.11.99 was moved with a delay of almost 6 months. 7. In the totality of the circumstances, I find that there was no good ground to take cognizance against the eight petitioners. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order dated 25.8.2001 is set aside and quashed.Petition allowed.. *******