JUDGMENT : 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in case titled ‘State Vs. Chanchal Singh and Ors.’ whereby the petitioner has been wrongly charged under Section 306/498-A RPC instead of 304-B/498-A RPC. 2. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is de-facto complainant and an unfortunate father of his deceased daughter namely Savita Devi who was compelled by the respondents to commit suicide. That during investigation, the police had collected sufficient material and concluded that the death of the deceased had caused by burn injuries and it has also come in the investigation that her in-laws i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3 were treating her with cruelty and atrocities and many a times the illegal demands of dowry raised by the respondents. That two days prior to the incident, she was thrown out by the respondents of her matrimonial home with the demand of dowry of Rs.10 lacs under the pretext of opening of showroom. That on 09.04.2016, the petitioner took his daughter back to her matrimonial home and tried to persuade the accused and showed his helplessness to meet the said demand and sought time to fulfill the same but on 11.04.2016 at 9.30 p.m., the petitioner came to know that his daughter set herself ablaze at her in-laws house. On 13.04.2016, she succumbed to the injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that FIR No.90/2016 under Section 306 RPC came to be registered in Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and during investigation evidence against the accused was collected and the statement of the witnesses were recorded and ultimately challan was presented against the accused under Section 306/498-A RPC despite the fact that there was sufficient material and evidence available on record for charging the accused under Section 304-B/498-A RPC. 4. With the afore mentioned submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court, without application of mind and without looking at the material/evidence available on file, has passed the impugned order. That since the impugned order does not stand the test of law, therefore, suffers from grave illegality and impropriety, and is liable to be set aside. 5. That since the impugned order does not stand the test of law, therefore, suffers from grave illegality and impropriety, and is liable to be set aside. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents, has taken a preliminary objection stating that revision against charged on instance of private party/complainant is not maintainable, it is only state through Public prosecutor, who can file revision.; he has further submitted that the impugned order is based on appreciation of evidence available on record and prays that the instant petition is bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspect of matter and law on the point. 7. The object of the revision is to confer upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions of apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. 8. The purpose of revision is to enable the revision court to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of the inferior criminal court. High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any Proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any Sentence order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. High Court has been expressly authorizes to exercise power of revision suo motu apart from the application from a party. The complainant is entitled to move a revision even if state does not. 9. High Court has been expressly authorizes to exercise power of revision suo motu apart from the application from a party. The complainant is entitled to move a revision even if state does not. 9. Even if argument of counsel for respondent is considered that complainant has no locus to file revision, this court can treat memo of revision petition as notice of proceeding of court below. 10. In AIR 2016 SC page 1197 in case titled Anant Prakash Sinha alias Anant Sinha v State of Haryana, it is held as under: “20. Being of this view, this Court upheld the order passed by the High Court. The said decision is, in our opinion, is distinguishable on facts. The instant case does not pertain to trial or any area by which a private lawyer takes control of the proceedings. As is evident, an application was filed by the informant to add a charge under Section 406 IPC as there were allegations against the husband about the criminal breach of trust as far as her stridhan is concerned. It was, in a way, bringing to the notice of the learned Magistrate about the defect in framing of the charge. The court could have done it suo motu. In such a situation, we do not find any fault on the part of learned Magistrate in entertaining the said application. It may be stated that the learned Magistrate has referred to the materials and recorded his prima facie satisfaction. There is no error in the said prima facie view. We also do not perceive any error in the revisional order by which it has set aside the charge framed against the mother-in-law. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the High Court in expressing its disinclination to interfere with the order passed in revision. We may clarify that the entire scrutiny is only for the purpose of framing of charge and nothing else. The learned Magistrate will proceed with the trial and decide the matter as per the evidence brought on record and shall not be influenced by any observations made as the same have to be restricted for the purpose of testing the legal defensibility of the impugned order. 21. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.” 11. In present case also trial is yet to start, and only charges have been framed. 21. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.” 11. In present case also trial is yet to start, and only charges have been framed. It is not a case, where private counsel engaged by complainant is conducting the trial. In this way, first limb of argument of counsel for respondents does not hold good. 12. Now coming to order of framing of charge dated 14.12.2016, from its perusal, it is evident that court below has not given reasons for framing charge; Court below has written cryptic order on 14.12.2016, that prima facie case has been made out against accused for framing charge u/s 306/498-A RPC; no arguments of prosecution/complainant and defence counsel have been written; no relevant facts of case has been mentioned in order. Charge is precise accusation of all allegations levelled in challan. So it was duty of court below to state some facts and reasons for framing of charge. It shall be beneficial for accused as well prosecution. Court is not to act upon the penal sections mentioned by Investigating agency in challan, but court has to give independent legal thoughts as to under which penal sections offences are made out against the accused. 13. Hence without commenting on merit of case, the order impugned is set aside. Trial court is directed to pass a reasoned order by writing relevant facts of case, arguments of prosecution/complainant and reasons for framing of charge under relevant sections. 14. Hence this petition is allowed. Copy of this order is transmitted to trial court.