JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/complainant, father of the deceased Uma, against the respondents no.2 to 5 namely, Shri Mahendra Kumar (brother-in-law of the deceased), Smt. Urmila (wife of brother-in-law of the deceased), Shri Nand Lal (father-in-law of the deceased) and Smt. Kesar Bai (mother-in-law of the deceased) challenging the order dated 24.7.2004 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana in F.R. No.33/2003 refusing the petitioner's request to take cognizance and try the respondents for the offence under Section 304B IPC as confirmed in the revision by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana in Criminal Revision No.12/2005 by the order dated 9.9.2005. 3. The respondents no.4 (Nand Lal) and no.5 (Smt. Kesar Bai) have expired during the pendency of this misc. petition and accordingly, the misc. petition qua them has become infructuous. 4. Succinctly stated, the facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the deceased Uma Devi was married to Manoj Kumar, brother of the respondent no.2 and son of the respondents no.4 and 5 in the year 1997. Three children were born out of the wedlock. On 2.4.2003, Uma Devi was found dead in the house of the accused. Initially proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were undertaken and the post mortem examination of the deceased was got done. About 25 days thereafter, the petitioner filed a report with the S.H.O., Police Station Deedwana with the allegations that the first informant/petitioner received a call from his daughter that the respondents were harassing and quarrelling with her and that she would be done to death. He further alleged that after he received the call, Uma Devi was done to death by throttling and the information regarding the incident was given to the first informant on the very night at 11 O' clock. It was further mentioned in the F.I.R. that the first informant was forced to sign certain documents so that the accused could be saved from punishment. On the basis of this report, F.I.R. No. 63/2003 was registered for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. and investigation commenced. The police at the completion of investigation came to a finding that no prima-facie case was made out and accordingly, a final report was given. On the basis of this report, F.I.R. No. 63/2003 was registered for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. and investigation commenced. The police at the completion of investigation came to a finding that no prima-facie case was made out and accordingly, a final report was given. The petitioner filed a protest petition and on the protest petition so filed, the statements of the petitioner and his witnesses were recorded and thereafter, the petitioner made a prayer to the learned Magistrate that cognizance be taken against the accused for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A I.P.C. but the learned Magistrate refused to accept the said prayer and limited the proceedings against the accused for offence under Section 498A I.P.C. by his order dated 24.7.2004. Aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed a revision which too has been rejected by order dated 9.9.2005. Accordingly, the present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking a direction for the prosecution of the respondents for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. and alternatively, under Section 302 I.P.C. as well. 5. This Court by order dated 4.7.2007 directed calling of the record of the trial court but it appears from the perusal of the record that in the meantime, the learned trial judge treating the case to be a warrant case instituted upon a complaint, directed the complainant to produce his evidence. It appears that the complainant/petitioner was desirous of seeking a relief regarding registration of a graver case against the accused for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C., therefore, he did not lead precharge evidence and on 4.4.2007, the learned Magistrate proceeded to discharge the accused from the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. as well for which cognizance had been taken. 6. 6. Assailing the order of exoneration of the accused, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, there was ample evidence on the record to the effect that the accused persons had harassed and humiliated the deceased on count of demand for dowry soon before her death and thereafter, the deceased was done to death by throttling and as such, firstly the order whereby the accused have not been put to trial for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. and secondly, the order dated 4.4.2007 whereby despite pendency of proceedings before this Court, the accused have been discharged from the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. should be set aside and the learned Magistrate should be directed to summon the accused for offence under Sections 304B and 302 I.P.C. and the accused should be put to trial for these offences as well. The counsel for the petitioner has pointedly referred to the post mortem report of the deceased and has submitted that as per the post mortem report, there was evidence to the effect that the deceased was strangulated and thus, a direction should be given to the court below to frame charge for the offences mentioned above and then to proceed against them. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, have submitted that in this case, initially the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were undertaken and during the course of the said proceedings, the complainant/petitioner himself did not make any allegation against the respondents and thus, on the basis of the belated F.I.R., the police investigated the matter and found that no case was made out to proceed against the respondents. He further submits that even after the registration of the F.I.R., the petitioner has given an application in writing to the investigating officer on 18.5.2003 to the effect that he did not want any action on the report lodged by him in the matter because the version as given to the S.D.M. was correct and that the report had been filed by him just due to misunderstanding created by certain people. He further submits that it is clearly a case of suicide and unless there is a specific evidence to the effect that the respondents herein had abetted the suicide by Uma Devi, then the concurrent finding of two courts regarding the respondents not being responsible for the death of Uma Devi should not be interfered with. 8. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record of the case as well as the orders impugned. In this case, before proceeding to consider the other evidence on record, a consideration of post mortem of the deceased is absolutely essential. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted on 3.4.2003 and the symptoms found as per the post mortem report are enumerated here under:- "Head tilted towards left, face congested and patechial hemorrhage on face & neck, frothy hemorrhagic saliva trickling from left angle of mouth and nostrils going down. The right chamber of heart was found full with blood. A ligature mark was found on neck. The groove of ligature mark was reddish brown, leathery, parchment like. On a dissection of ligature mark, it was found that there was a subcutaneous hemorrhage below the ligature mark. The sterno-clideo-mastoid muscle was torn partially on both sides of neck. The walls of carotid artery below the mark was bruised, larynx and trachea on opening was found to be congested and containing little bloody froth. The opinion which has been given by the medical board for cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. The viscera were sent for chemical analysis from where the report has been obtained that no poison was found." 9. This Court is of the opinion that if the post mortem report of the deceased is considered in the correct perspective and the symptoms found in the body of the deceased are seen in light of the medical jurisprudence by the celebrated Author Modi, it becomes apparent that the symptoms which have been found are all disclosing that the death of Uma Devi was not as a result of hanging but was as a result of strangulation. The existence of hemorrhagic fluid from mouth and nostrils, congestion of larynx, trachea and face, the groove of ligature mark being reddish brown and having subcutaneous hemorrhage underneath the ligature mark as well as tearing of muscles in mastoid region, clearly lead to the irresistible conclusion that the death of Uma Devi was not suicidal but was as a result of strangulation. 10. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents that Uma Devi's death was suicidal cannot be accepted for another reason. In this case when the site was inspected in the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., it was disclosed to the learned S.D.M. conducting the site inspection that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself from a fan inside the room. But a perusal of the site inspection discloses that the blades of fan have not been mentioned therein to be affected by the hanging of the deceased. This fact shows that the story as projected by the accused does not appear to be plausible. As per the site inspection plan, the room of the respondents no.2 and 3 is adjoining the room of the deceased. There is a direct allegation in the F.I.R. though belatedly that the respondents no.2 and 3 namely, Mahendra Kumar and Smt. Urmila, were quarrelling with the deceased and the deceased gave a call to her father on the very same morning that these two would kill her. 11. The upshot of the above discussion is that this Court is of the opinion that the orders impugned of the learned Magistrate dated 24.7.2004 as affirmed in revision on 9.9.2005 and 4.7.2007 discharging the accused from offence under Section 498A I.P.C. deserve to be set aside and accordingly, the same are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order after hearing the complainant and learned public prosecutor. The learned Magistrate is at liberty to consider as to against whom the case should be proceeded with and he is also at liberty to take into account all applicable provisions of I.P.C. which may be revealed after perusal of the material available on the record. 12. The misc. petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition disposed of. *******