JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order dated 08.08.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal case No.391/01 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for adding and taking cognizance of the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code and committing the case to the court of sessions has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner lodged a report at the police station Nahargarh Road, Jaipur on 05.07.1998 that his daughter Uma was married to Tara Shankar on 06.05.1994. Uma was subjected to cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. Uma died on 02.07.1998. The death was caused by strangulation. FIR was registered under Sections 498A, 304B Indian Penal Code but after usual investigation the challan was filed against the accused Tara Shankar under Section 498A Indian Penal Code only. During the trial, the petitioner filed an application on 07.01.2004 praying for adding and for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 304B Indian Penal Code also as the deceased Uma had died within seven years of her marriage in unnatural circumstances. The trial court dismissed the application by the impugned order dated 08.08.2006. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this misc. petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner before the trial court is essentially under Section 216 Criminal Procedure Code and that there is evidence on record to establish a prima facie case against the respondent No.2 under Section 304B Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate dismissing his application is illegal and misuse of the process of the court. 4. The deceased Uma is alleged to have died on 02.07.1998. The report has been lodged after a delay of 3 days i.e on 05.07.1998. A perusal of the report makes it clear that the complainant, his wife and son were present in the sasural of the deceased Uma on the day she died and she was cremated in their presence. It is not clear why the complainant did not go to the police station immediately if he had any doubt regarding the circumstances of the death of the deceased Uma. No postmortem was conducted on her body. It is not clear why the complainant did not go to the police station immediately if he had any doubt regarding the circumstances of the death of the deceased Uma. No postmortem was conducted on her body. A challan was filed on 11.02.1999. Learned trial court framed charges on 17.03.2001. The application for adding Section 304B Indian Penal Code has been filed on 07.01.2004. Not only that the application has been filed after a long delay but I do not find any evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that the deceased Uma died otherwise than under normal circumstances. 5. For the reasons stated above I am not inclined to interfere while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code as there is no misuse of the process of the court.Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.Petition Dismissed. *******