JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent. 2. Parties are in agreement to decide this criminal revision petition at the stage of admission only. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that notice to opposite party No. 2 will only delay the proceedings of the present case. 4. Present criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 24.11.2018 passed by learned Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in S.T. Case No. 77 of 2018, State vs. Rajendra Singh and Others u/s 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Shamshabad, District Farrukhabad (arising out of Case Crime No. 303 of 2016) whereby discharge application 5B, u/s 227 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist has been dismissed. 5. As per prosecution case, the complainant/opposite party No. 2 lodged a F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No. 303 of 2016 on 26.9.2016 that her sister Nanhi was married to the revisionist about three years prior to date of FIR. At the time of marriage, they have given dowry as per their financial capacity, but revisionist and his sister, her father and mother in law (uncle and aunty) used to torture her for not giving adequate dowry. Accused persons have also demanded gold chain and motor cycle. Revisionist informed the complainant on phone on 25.9.2016 that his sister has died due to burning. Revisionist was not named in the FIR whereas his uncle and aunty were named. 6. Post mortem of the body of deceased Nannhi was conducted and as per opinion of doctor, cause of death was asphyxia which was caused as a result of anti-mortem burn injury (deep burn were all over body). 7. Revisionist was not named in the FIR whereas his uncle and aunty were named. 6. Post mortem of the body of deceased Nannhi was conducted and as per opinion of doctor, cause of death was asphyxia which was caused as a result of anti-mortem burn injury (deep burn were all over body). 7. Informant in his statement has stated that:- c;ku oknh & onfj;kQ~Rk Jh jkds'kiky iq= Jh ckcwjkeiky fuoklh dqEg:vk Fkkuk tykyckn ftyk 'kkgtgkaiqj us ,QŒvkbZŒvkjŒ dk leFkZu djrs gq, crk;k fd lkgc esjs firk th ugh gSA esjh eka dk uke lq"kek gSA eSa nks HkkbZ gSA eq>ls NksVk f'koiky gSA esjh 3 cgus FkhA lcls cMh foeyk fQj lksuh rFkk lcls NksVh uUgha dh 'kknh djhc 3 o"kZ iwoZ leqfpr nkungst nsdj fgUnw jhfr fjokt ls lqjthr iq= jktsUæ flag fuoklh dyqvkiqj lku ds lkFk fd;k Fkk ijUrq 'kknh ds ckn cgu dk llqj jktsUæ o pfp;k lkl fdju iRuh ftjUnw vfrfjDr ngst esa lksus dh pSu] eksVj lkbZfdy dh ekax dks ysdj cgu dks ÁrkfM+r djrs FksA cgu us dbZ ckj ;g ckr ge yksxksa dks crk;h Fkh rc ge yksxksa us okrkZ dh Fkh fdUrq jktsUæ ds fdlh ls laca/k gksus ds dkj.k cgu dks ijs'kku djrs jgs eSaus dgk fd xjhc vkneh gwaA ikuhir esa etnwjh djrk gwaA bl ij jktsUæ flag us xkyh&xykSt fd;kA fnukad 25-09-2016 dks dksbZ cguksbZ lqjthr tks xksaMk ds fodjh dS.Mh esa ukSdjh djrs gSA us lwpuk fn;k fd rqEgkjh cgu uUgha dh vkx yxus ls e`R;q gks x;h gSA eSaus dgk fd eS vk jgk gwaA tc rd eSa u vkÅ vafre laLdkj u fd;k tk;saA ÁkFkhZ fnukad 26-09-2016 dks 3 cts cyqvkiqjk igqapk rks xkao esa dksbZ ugh feyk xkao okyksa us crk;k fd pfp;k lkl fdju o llqj jktsUæ us feydj mldh gR;k dj nh gSA lkgc bu yksxksa ds ngst ds dkj.k esjh cgu dh gR;k dj nh gSA 8. Brother of deceased Shiv Pal in his statement has stated that:- eSaus viuh cgu uUgha dh 'kknh lqjthr iq= jktsUæ fuoklh dyqvkiqj lkuh Fkkuk 'ke'kkckn ds lkFk fgUnw&jhfr fjokt ds lkFk leqfpr nku ngst nsdj 3 o"kZ iwoZ dh FkhA ijUrq esjk cguksbZ lqjthr o firk jktsUæ rFkk muds ?kj dh ekyfdu fdju iRuh ftrsUæ ngst esa eksVj lkbZfdy lksus dh pSu dh ekax dks ysdj ÁrkfM+r dj ekjrs ihVrs FksA cgu us vkdj crkbZ Fkh rFkk cgu vius Qksu uacj 7524832012 ds }kjk Hkh crk;h Fkh esjk cguksbZ xks.Mk cLrh esa oSdjh QSDVªh esa ukSdjh djrk FkkA ;g Hkh vius eksckby uacj Øe'k% 9005556401 o 9651038548 ds }kjk cgu dks eksckby ij vi'kCn o ÁrkfM+r djrk FkkA bUgh ngst dh ekax iwjh u gksus ij fnukad 25-09-2016 feV~Vh dk rsy ls tykdj gR;k dj nhA ;g ckr cguksbZ lqjthr us Qksu ij crkbZ rc ge yksx xkao dyqvkij igqaps rks ?kj ij dksbZ ugha feykA bu rhuksa yksxksa us feydj cgu dh gR;k dj nh gSA 9. Sister of deceased Smt. Bimla in her statement has stated that:- uUgha esjh lcls NksVh cgu Fkh] ftldh 'kknh lqjthr iq= jktsUæ fuoklh dyqvkiqj Fkkuk 'ke'kkckn ds lkFk dh FkhA 'kknh ds ckn mldk ifr lqjthr] llqj jktsUæ] pfp;k lkl fdju ngst ds fy;s ÁrkfM+r djus yxs cgus us ;g ckr crkbZ Fkh fnukad 25-09-2016 dks mldh gR;k gksus dh lwpuk ij eSa Hkh ekSds ij x;s Fkh u gh cgu ns[kus dks feyh Fkh fdlh vkSj u gh ?kj okys feys FksA rc esjs HkkbZ jkds'k us Fkkus ij eqdnek fy[kk;k Fkk cgu dk ifr cLrh esa osdjh QSDVªjh esa dke djrk FkkA 10. Revisionist was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.4.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11323 of 2017. 11. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet under Section 498-A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against revisionist, his uncle and aunty. 12. Revisionist was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.4.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11323 of 2017. 11. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet under Section 498-A, 304B IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against revisionist, his uncle and aunty. 12. The Revisionist filed application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. on 4.8.2018 on the ground that:- ÁkFkhZ dk ?kVuk ls dksbZ lEcU/k u gksus ds dkj.k rFkk xks.Mk ¼cLrh½ esa ÁkbosV QSDVªh esa ukSdjh djus ds dkj.k ?kVuk ds le; ekSds ij ekStwn ugh Fkk blh dkj.k tkucw>dj eqdnek oknh us mldks uketn ugh fd;k FkkA ÁkFkhZ lwpuk ij ?kj ij vk;k Fkk ÁkFkhZ ds xks.Mk esa jgus ds lEcU/k esa lEcfU/kr foospd }kjk Hkh foospuk ds nkSjku crk;k x;k gS ÁkFkhZ dh ?kVuk esa dksbZ lafyIrrk u gksus ds dkj.k gh eqdnek oknh us foospd ds le{k vius /kkjk 161 lhŒvkjŒihŒlhŒ ds C;ku esa Hkh ÁkFkhZ dk uke ugh crk;kA ;g fd lEcfU/kr foospd us foospuk ds nkSjku e`rdk dh cgu o HkkbZ f'koiky dk Hkh /kkjk&161 lhŒvkjŒihŒlhŒ ds vUrxZr C;ku fd;k gS ftlesa Hkh xks.Mk cLrh esa gh ÁkFkhZ dk ukSdjh djuk crk;k gS rFkk cgu lq"kek vkSj foeyk ds C;ku 161 lhŒvkjŒihŒlhŒ esa dFku fd;k gS fd cgu uUgha nsoh us eksckby uacj 7524832012 o 9005558401 o 9651038584 vkfn uEcjksa ij ÁrkfM+r djus o vi'kCn dh ckr dh gS ijUrq foospd }kjk mDr eksckby dh dksbZ lk{; esa dky fMVsy ,d= ugh dh gS bl dkj.k mDr C;ku egRoghu gS vkSj mldks lk{; esa i<+k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugh gSA ÁFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa eqdnek oknh us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd pfp;k lkl vf/kd ÁrkfM+r djrh Fkh blh us lksus dh pSu o eksVj lkbfdy dh ekax dh Fkh ÁkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ ngst dh ekax ugh dh xbZ u ngst ds ckor ÁrkfM+r fd;k gS bl Ádkj dk dksbZ dFku ÁFke lwpuk fjiksVZ vFkok vU; lk{; esa ugh vk;k gS bl dkj.k ÁkFkhZ iw.kZr% funksZ"k gS vkSj ÁkFkhZ ds fo:} dksbZ vijk/k ugh curk gSA 13. The learned trial court after hearing the parties rejected the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 24.11.2018. The learned trial court after hearing the parties rejected the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. vide impugned order dated 24.11.2018. The learned trial court held that:- bl Ádkj Li"V gS fd oknh eqdnek jkds'kiky us dsoy vfHk;qDrx.k jktsUæ flag o fdju }kjk vfrfjDr ngst esa eksVj lkbfdy o lksus dh pSu dh ekax fd;k tkuk vkSj ekax iwjh u gksus ij e`rdk dks ÁrkfM+r fd;k tkuk dgk gS vkSj ;g dguk gS fd xkao okyksa us crk;k fd mDr yksxksa us feydj e`rdk dh gR;k dj nh gS] ijUrq e`rdk ds nwljs HkkbZ f'koiky o e`rdk dh cgu foeyk ds /kkjk 161 naŒÁŒlaŒ ds c;kuksa ds vuqlkj lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k lqjthr] jktsUæ o fdju }kjk ngst dh ekax dh x;h ,oa ekax u iwjh gksus ij e`rdk uUgha nsoh dks ÁrkfM+r fd;k x;k rFkk vkx ls tykdj mldh gR;k dkfjr dh x;hA iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj e`rdk uUgha nsoh dh e`R;q tyus ds dkj.k gqbZ gSA mijksDr xokgksa }kjk vius /kkjk 161 naŒÁŒlaŒ ds c;ku esa ;|fi fd ;g dgk x;k gS fd vfHk;qDr lqjthr xks.Mk esa ukSdjh djrk Fkk ijUrq ,slk dksbZ dFku ugha fd;k x;k gS fd og ?kVuk ds le; ?kVukLFky ij ekStwn ugha FkkA ÁkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr lqjthr dh rjQ ls ;g dgk x;k gS fd ;g ?kVuk ds le; ekSds ij ekStwn ugha Fkk cfYd xks.Mk esa ÁkbosV ukSdjh dj jgk FkkA ÁkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr lqjthr }kjk fd;k x;k ;g dFku lk{; dk fo"k; gSA ;|fi fd oknh eqdnek jkds'kiky }kjk Fkkus ij nh x;h rgjhj ,oa mlds /kkjk 161 naŒÁŒlaŒ ds c;ku esa dfFkr ?kVuk dkfjr djus esa ÁkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr lqjthr dks lafyIr gksuk ugh dgk x;k gS ijUrq e`rdk uUgha nsoh ds nwljs HkkbZ f'koiky ,oa cgu foeyk }kjk vius /kkjk 161 naŒÁŒlaŒ ds c;kuksa esa Li"V :i ls dfFkr ?kVuk dkfjr djus esa vfHk;qDr lqjthr ¼e`rdk ds ifr½ dks Hkh lafyIr gksuk dgk x;k gSA vfHk;kstu }kjk dsl Mk;jh esa miyC/k lEiw.kZ lk{;ksa ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds nks"kksa dks lkfcr djus dh ÁLFkkiuk dh x;h gS vkSj esjh jk; esa dsl Mk;jh esa miyC/k lEiw.kZ lk{;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g mi/kkj.kk djus dk vk/kkj gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k lqjthr] jktsUæ flag o fdju }kjk&498,] 304ch HkkŒnaŒlaŒ fodYi esa /kkjk 302@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ,oa /kkjk 4 ngst Áfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e esa n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k x;k gSA vr% fdlh vfHk;qDr dks mUeksfpr fd;s tkus dk vk/kkj ugha ik;k tkrk gS vkSj lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k lqjthr] jktsUæ flag o fdju ds fo:} /kkjk 498,] 304ch HkkŒnaŒlaŒ fodYi esa /kkjk 302@34 HkkŒnaŒlaŒ ,oa /kkjk 4 ngst Áfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus dk vk/kkj Ik;kZIr ik;k tkrk gSA rnuqlkj ÁkFkZuki= 5ch vUrxZr /kkjk 227 naŒÁŒlaŒ fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;k tkrkA 14. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed charges against all the accused under Section 498A and 304 IPC (alternatively 302/34 IPC) and Section 9 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 15. Revisionist has challenged the order dated 24.11.2018 in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that present revision petition be allowed on the following grounds:- (i) Revisionist is not named in the FIR. (ii) There is no evidence against the revisionist. (iii) Revisionist was working at Gonda and he was not present at the place of occurrence when the incident happened. (iv) Entire allegations mentioned in the charge-sheet are false and incorrect. 16. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the impugned order and stated that the impugned order is legally and factually correct and there is no occasion for this Court to interfere under Revisional Jurisdiction. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment passed in the matter of P. Vijayan vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 398 held that:- 10. Before considering the merits of the claim of both the parties, it is useful to refer Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under:- "227. Discharge - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing." If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts. 11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex-facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. 12. The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by this Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, wherein this Court observed as follows:- "4..........Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial." This Court has thus held that whereas strong suspicion may not take the place of the proof at the trial stage, yet it may be sufficient for the satisfaction of the trial Judge in order to frame a charge against the accused. 13. 13. In a subsequent decision i.e. in Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, this Court after adverting to the conditions enumerated in Section 227 of the Code and other decisions of this Court, enunciated the following principles:- "(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." 14. The scope and ambit of Section 227 was again considered in Niranjan Singh K.S. Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, this Court held that: "6. Can he marshal the evidence found on the record of the case and in the documents placed before him as he would do on the conclusion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution after the charge is framed? Can he marshal the evidence found on the record of the case and in the documents placed before him as he would do on the conclusion of the evidence adduced by the prosecution after the charge is framed? It is obvious that since he is at the stage of deciding whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for framing the charge, his enquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from the record and documents constitute the offence with which the accused is charged. At that stage he may sift the evidence for that limited purpose but he is not required to marshal the evidence with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. All that he is called upon to consider is whether there is sufficient ground to frame the charge and for this limited purpose he must weigh the material on record as well as the documents relied on by the prosecution. In the State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh this Court observed that at the initial stage of the framing of a charge if there is a strong suspicion evidence which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. In Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal this Court after considering the scope of Section 227 observed that the words not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused clearly show that the Judge is not merely a post office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution but he has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine that a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities but he may evaluate the material to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value establish the ingredients constituting the said offence." 15. In a recent decision, in Soma Chakravarty vs. State, this Court has held that:- "The settled legal position is that if on the basis of material on record the court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true.... Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. (Para 10) * * * * * * Charge may although be directed to be framed when there exists a strong suspicion but it is also trite that the Court must come to a prima facie finding that there exist some materials therefor. Suspicion alone, without anything more, cannot form the basis therefor or held to be sufficient for framing charge." 19. I shall now apply the principles enunciated above in the present case in order to find out whether or not the court below was justified in dismissing the discharge application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 20. The learned trial court has considered the material available against the revisionist which are statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of complainant - Rakesh Pal, Shiv Pal (brother of deceased) and Bimla (sister of deceased), who had specifically stated that after the marriage accused persons including revisionist had demanded dowry (gold chain and motorcycle) from the deceased and for that they torture her also. 21. The learned trial court has also considered the post-mortem report wherein the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem injury (deeply burn were all over body). 22. 21. The learned trial court has also considered the post-mortem report wherein the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem injury (deeply burn were all over body). 22. The learned trial court after considering all the materials on record come to conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the revisionist as well as against other accused. While dealing with application u/s 227 Cr.P.C. the trial court has to consider the record and documents available at that stage for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. 23. In the present case, after considering the materials available on record, the learned trial court being satisfied that there are sufficient grounds against the revisionist to proceed and to prove charge against him and therefore, learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. by impugned order. 24. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am in agreement with the said conclusion. 25. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present criminal revision is dismissed.