JUDGMENT 1. - The revision petition has arisen out of order dated 31.3.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Women Atrocities Act Cases No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby learned trial court has directed to frame charges against the petitioner under Section 498-A, 304-B in alternate Section 302, 306 and 406 IPC. 2. Learned counsel submits that immediately after death of the victim Rashmi Sharma, an inquest report was prepared under Section 174 Cr.P.C by police and proceedings were initiated by Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In the statement given before Sub-Divisional Magistrate, neither mother Munni Devi nor brother Jitendra Singh of the deceased has stated anything inculpatory against the petitioner, rather they have stated that the deceased was kept and carried well by her in-laws. After eight days of the death i.e. 31.4.2015, a complaint was received by SHO Police Station, Adarsh Nagar under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. from concern Magistrate whereupon the instant FIR was registered. The complaint was filed by father of the deceased Anand Sharma. The complaint contains utterly contrary factual matrix which is apparently result of concoction and fabrication. 3. Learned counsel further submits that prior to death, the deceased Rashmi had left a suicide note which was traced out by petitioner at the time of customary purification of house and households after the death. He submitted the same to the investigating officer. As per this suicide note she stated that "she is committing suicide on his own volition and nobody is responsible for it" She is annoyed with herself and she committed suicide. As per FSL report this suicide note has been found to be genuine. 4. Learned counsel further submits that as per post mortem report, there was no injury found ante mortem on body of the deceased. Opinion about cause of death has been kept reserved for want of his to pathological examination reports. 5. Learned counsel further submits that there are material contradictions inter se in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 6. While citing judgment passed by High Court of Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.511/2006 State of Rajasthan v. Rupinder Kumar dated 19.11.2007 and 2008 Vol. 4 SCC 70 Ran Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. 8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the material made available before me. 9. 4 SCC 70 Ran Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. 8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and gone through the material made available before me. 9. It is undisputed that immediately after death of Rashmi her mother Munni Sharma and brother Jitendra Sharma stated before Sub-Divisional Magistrate during the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. that they have no grievance against the in-laws of the deceased, but the complaint on the basis of which instant FIR has been registered, is containing sufficient incriminating evidence against the petitioners which is further corroborated by statement of witnesses recorded by police Section 161 Cr.P.C. Forensic Science Laboratory, after examining the suicidal note submitted by the petitioner to the Investigating Officer with the admitted writings of deceased, has opined that the disputed and admitted writings contain significant points of similarities. However, this suicidal note contains neither any date nor it has been produced before the Investigation Officer immediately after the death of the deceased. Explanation in relation to it, will be tested and appreciated only during the trial. As per inquest report prepared by police on 22.04.2015, the dead body was having no external visible injuries but blood was oozing out from mouth and nose. The victim died within 5 years of wedlock. The death can't be said to be natural one. In such a situation, considering the evidence collected by police during investigation learned trial court committed no error in arriving at the conclusion that offence under Section 498-A, 304-B and alternate Section 302, 306 and 406 IPC are prima facie made out. I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order which is in consonance with the principles of law. 10. So far as the cases referred by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, principles enunciated therein are to be followed but being factually different from the present case, they do not lend any support to the appellant.Hence the revision stands dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******