JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra in Criminal Case No.138/2005 taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC as affirmed in revisions being Criminal Revisions Nos.32/2006 and 27/2005 by order dated 4.7.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of these misc. petitions are that the petitioner namely Surendra Kumar was married to Manoj two years prior to year 1998. Smt. Manoj consumed some poisonous substance on 18.8.1998. She was taken to the hospital at Bhadra but expired on the way. The petitioner Krishna @ Kishna Ram submitted an information at the Police Station Bhadra on 18.8.1998 alleging inter alia that he along with his son had gone to the agricultural field. He further alleged that his wife followed them with lunch. During the course of the day, his son went to the house and came back and informed him that Smt. Manoj had consumed some poisonous substance and was lying unconscious in the house. She was taken to the hospital at Bhadra, but she was declared dead on the way. 3. On this information, the Police recorded a Marg report (inquest report) under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the same was forwarded to the S.D.O. concerned, who conducted an enquiry thereupon. In the meantime, the father of the deceased namely Mohan Lal filed a FIR at the Police Station Bhadra on 18.8.1998 with the allegations that his daughter Manoj was married to the petitioner namely Surendra Kumar and within the period of two years of the marriage, she was harassed in relation to demand of dowry and ultimately due to the harassment by the marital relatives, she met with unnatural death in her marital home. The Police, on submission of the complaint registered a FIR for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and commenced investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a FR in the matter disbelieving the case as set up by the complainant. The complainant submitted a protest petition and the learned Addl. The Police, on submission of the complaint registered a FIR for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and commenced investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a FR in the matter disbelieving the case as set up by the complainant. The complainant submitted a protest petition and the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra proceeded to accept the protest petition and took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and directed them to be summoned by issuing warrants of arrest. 4. The petitioners challenged the order taking cognizance by way of filing two separate revisions being Revision No.32/2006 (Surendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.) and Revision No.27/2005 (Krishna @ Kishna Ram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.). Both the aforesaid revision petitions were rejected by order dated 4.7.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra. Now these two misc. petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance and all other subsequent proceedings against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order taking cognizance against the petitioners is absolutely illegal and amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. He submits that the mechanical fashion, in which, the learned trial court has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences is disclosed from the fact that Kamlesh, a nine years' old 'nanad' of the deceased has also been summoned to face trial in this case. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners Rajendra and Krishna Devi along with Poonam and Rajpal were all residing at Shimla for the last three years and were not present in the house on the fateful day. He submits that the order passed by the learned trial court taking cognizance against the petitioners as well as the order passed by the learned revisional court affirming the said order are absolutely illegal and amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel thus submits that the instant misc. petitions be accepted and the order taking cognizance against the petitioners as well as the order passed by the learned revisional court affirming the order taking cognizance be quashed. 6. Learned counsel thus submits that the instant misc. petitions be accepted and the order taking cognizance against the petitioners as well as the order passed by the learned revisional court affirming the order taking cognizance be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant respondent No.2 have vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that in this case, the family of the petitioners is a influential family and that is why though the FIR was filed way back in the year 1998, the Investigating Agency hushed up the matter for a long period of almost seven years and did not file the result of the investigation for such a long period of time in a serious case of dowry death. The FR was filed in the court as late as on 25.2.2005. He submits that the complainant filed a protest petition against the said final report and has also examined himself, his wife as well as his son in support of the protest petition and all of three have clearly levelled specific allegations disclosing a case of dowry death against the accused persons. He thus submits that the order taking cognizance against the petitioners is not liable to be interfered with. He further submits that at the stage of taking cognizance, only the existence of a prima facie case has to be seen. He further submits that from the allegations levelled in the FIR also, it is apparent that the deceased was harassed by the accused persons on account of demand of dowry, and as a result of which, she committed suicide within seven years from the marriage. Learned counsel thus submits that the instant misc. petitions are liable to be rejected. 7. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at the bar and upon perusal of the orders passed by the learned courts below as well as the material available on the record of the case, it is evident that deceased Smt. Manoj was married to the petitioner Surendra Kumar within a period of two years from her marriage, she met with an unnatural death by poisoning in her marital home. There is a specific allegation of the complainant in the FIR that the deceased was harassed by the accused persons in relation to the demand of dowry. However, when the complainant Mohan Lal has been examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C., he has not levelled any allegation against the 'jeth', 'jethani' and 'nanad' of the deceased i.e. petitioners Rajendra, Krishna Devi and Kamlesh. Likewise, Mahesh, the brother of the deceased has also not levelled any allegation against the 'nanad'. The mother-in-law Mahendra Devi also in her statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. alleged that when the deceased came back from her marital home, she made a complaint that her father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law were not happy with the dowry items. She has also not levelled any specific allegation against the 'jeth', 'jethani' and 'nanad' of the deceased. In the light of the aforesaid statements and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at the bar and on a consideration of the material collected during the course of the investigation that the 'jeth' and 'jethani' i.e. Rajendra and Krishna Devi were living separately at Shimla and considering the fact that Kamlesh is alleged to be a nine years' old girl at the time of the incident, this Court is of the opinion that the order taking cognizance qua these three petitioners namely Rajendra, Krishna Devi and Kamlesh cannot be sustained. However, there is ample material available on the record to connect the petitioners namely Surendra Kumar (husband), Krishna @ Kisna Ram (father-in-law), Sharbati (mother-in-law), Rajpal (dewar) and Poonam (dewar) with the crime. 8. Resultantly, the misc. petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1179/2008 filed on behalf of petitioner - Surendra Kumar being bereft of any force is hereby dismissed. 9. However, the misc. petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.977/2008 is allowed in part. While upholding the order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC as affirmed in revision by the order dated 4.7.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra qua the petitioners - Krishna @ Kisna Ram, Sharbati, Rajpal and Poonam, the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners - Rajendra, Krishna Devi and Kamlesh. 10. While, disposing of these misc. Sessions Judge, Bhadra qua the petitioners - Krishna @ Kisna Ram, Sharbati, Rajpal and Poonam, the same are hereby quashed qua the petitioners - Rajendra, Krishna Devi and Kamlesh. 10. While, disposing of these misc. petitions, this Court is of the opinion that in this case, there is a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the concerned police officials in keeping the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. covered up for the last seven years. In this case, the FIR was registered on 18.8.1998 and after huge delay of seven years from the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the police filed a negative final report in the matter on 25.2.2005. The very fact that the negative final report has been filed on 25.2.2005 i.e. after a huge delay of seven years from the registration of the aforesaid FIR clearly shows that the conduct of the police officials was highly suspicious in this case. A perusal of the FR shows that the same has been chalked out on 23.8.1998 i.e. just after five days of the registration of the FIR and by that time the investigation had not even been completed. There are statements of various witnesses on record, who have been examined between 1st September to 8th September, 1998. Most of these witnesses have been examined for the purpose of showing that the accused were not responsible for the death of Smt. Manoj. But, it is a matter of utter surprise that even before such statements were recorded, the Investigating Officer concluded well in advance that no case was made out against the accused. In this view of the matter, this Court deems it just and proper that a direction has to be issued to the Director General of Police as well as the Home Secretary, Government of Rajashan for making necessary enquiry against the erring police officials, who have handled the whole case. After conducting necessary enquiry in the matter, a report shall be submitted to this Court. While disposing of the instant misc. petitions, the same are kept open for receiving the report of the Director General of Police as well as the Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan. 11. Put up on 21st March, 2013 for receiving the enquiry report. 12. After conducting necessary enquiry in the matter, a report shall be submitted to this Court. While disposing of the instant misc. petitions, the same are kept open for receiving the report of the Director General of Police as well as the Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan. 11. Put up on 21st March, 2013 for receiving the enquiry report. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court, Director General of Police as well as to the Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan forthwith.Revision No. 1179/2008 dismissed and Revision No. 977/2008 allowed partly. *******