Judgment : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application has been preferred by petitioners against the order dated 9th March, 2004 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial no. 377 of 2001, whereby and whereunder while the Court-below while discharged the petitioners from the offence under Section 307 of the I. P. C. rejected their petition for discharge so far as charge under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 498a of the I. P. C. is concerned. ( 2 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners relied on a judgment dated 23rd Dec. 2002 passed by learned. Principle Judge, Family Court , singhbhum East, Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 40/358 of 2001. It was submitted that the family Court after consideration of entire evidence on record, passed a decree for dissolution of marriage of petitioner No. 1, Smt. Manju Singh. It was also submitted that the aforesaid judgment which is based on evidence was produced before the Court below to suggest that no case was made out to proceed against the petitioner, but that was not taken Into consideration before passing the impugned order dated 9th March, 2004. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Sri Satish Mehra v. Delhi administration, reported in 1997 BBCJ (SC) 52 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Sessions Judge is within his power to consider even materials, which the accused may produce at the stage contemplated in Section 227 of the Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) FROM the impugned order dated 9th march, 2004, it will be evident that the Court below perused the case diary and found that the witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the I. O. under Section 161 of the cr. P. C. clearly supported the case of the victim lady by making statement that Manju singh was subjected to torture at several times for demand of dowry. Even she was driven out by the accused on a tempo as she could not satisfy the demand of a car as dowry. She was fortunate that a co-villager met her in the way, who directed the driver of tempo to take her to the police station. Thereupon, the driver carried her at govindpur, Police Station where the victim lady lodged the written report. She was fortunate that a co-villager met her in the way, who directed the driver of tempo to take her to the police station. Thereupon, the driver carried her at govindpur, Police Station where the victim lady lodged the written report. Taking into consideration the materials, collected by the investigation Officer, and the injury report, submitted by the doctor, while the Court below held that no offence under Section 307 of the I. P. C. was constituted, further held that there was evidence on record to constitute charge under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 498a of the I. P. C. and also under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Act. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid observation, as this Court, was not inclined to grant relief to the petitioner at this stage, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this revision application. It was submitted that the petitioners will cooperate in the proceeding but the Court below be directed to conclude the proceeding within six months. ( 6 ) IF the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the matter, the Court below will try to conclude the proceeding as early as possible ( 7 ) THIS revision application is dismissed, as withdrawn. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .