JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The complainant Vimla Devi has approached this Court by way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to assail the order dated 16.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar dismissing revision No. 93/2011 preferred by the petitioner and affirming the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar accepting the negative Final Report No. 204/2010 submitted by the investigating officer of Police Station Ramsinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar after investigation of the FIR No. 152/2010 registered for the offences under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Brief facts relevant and essential for decision of this misc. petition are noted herein below. 3. The petitioner complainant lodged a complaint in the Court of the learned ACJM, Anoopgarh on 02.08.2010 alleging inter alia that the accused Munshi Ram came to their house with his tractor on 21.07.2010 in the morning at about 08.00-08.30 AM. and requested her husband Chanduram to accompany him to procure seeds from Ramsinghpur. Her husband accompanied the accused on his tractor and both proceeded towards Ramsinghpur. At about 12 O' Clock, her husband got a call from Minta Singh son of Amrik Singh, resident of 57 GB requesting him for a belt and pulley to operate the pump on tube-well. Her husband told Minta Singh that he should proceed towards the field and he would be arriving there with the accused Munshi Ram on his tractor and would hand over the belt and the pulley. Minta Singh informed the complainant that he was proceeding towards the field in the Chak 16 A.S. when he saw Chanduram sitting on the "Inter" tractor which was being driven by Munshi Ram. At that time, these persons were at a distance of about 2 Murabbas from the Anoopgarh Branch Canal and both were in an inebriated state. Chanduram signaled Minta Singh to proceed further indicating that they would follow him from behind. Minta Singh came to their house and asked the complainant and her son regarding the whereabouts of Chanduram on which, they replied that he had not returned. Minta Singh took the pulley and the belt and went away. Chanduram signaled Minta Singh to proceed further indicating that they would follow him from behind. Minta Singh came to their house and asked the complainant and her son regarding the whereabouts of Chanduram on which, they replied that he had not returned. Minta Singh took the pulley and the belt and went away. At about 3 O' Clock, Vinod, son of complainant, called Munshi Ram and asked him the whereabouts of Chanduram to which he replied that he had dropped off Chanduram at a distance of one Murabba from the Anoopgarh Canal and that he was unaware as to what happened thereafter. On the next day, Munshiram called Vinod to his house and asked him to assist in the search of Chanduram. Vinod, who was a naive young boy, was taken to a few villages. Then he was taken to the Ramsinghpur Mandi where he was made to sign some documents by keeping him in dark. Munshi Ram once again took Vinod and the complainant's brother to look out for Chanduram. On 24.07.2010, the dead body of Chanduram was found on the outlet of the canal at Point 8/9 K.N.D. The police was called. Munshi Ram manipulated all these proceedings. They later came to know that Munshi Ram had killed Chanduram by driving the tractor over him and then the dead body was thrown into the canal. Police was influenced by Shri Munshi Ram in order to mislead the direction of investigation. She further alleged that a month earlier, Munshi Ram illegally deprived them of irrigation facility on which, her husband filed a case against Munshi Ram who threatened to take revenge and as a culmination of this enmity, Chanduram was murdered by Munshi Ram. The police acted under the influence of the accused even while undertaking proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Her son submitted an application with true facts before the Dy. S.P. Anoopgarh who also did not take action thereupon. Upon which, the complainant was compelled to file the complaint in the court. 4. This complaint was forwarded to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereupon, FIR No. 152/2010 came to be registered at the Police Station Ramsinghpur and investigation was undertaken. S.P. Anoopgarh who also did not take action thereupon. Upon which, the complainant was compelled to file the complaint in the court. 4. This complaint was forwarded to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereupon, FIR No. 152/2010 came to be registered at the Police Station Ramsinghpur and investigation was undertaken. The report of autopsy conducted upon the dead body of Shri Chanduram was collected by the I.O. from the file of proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and as per this report, the left foot of the victim was found missing. The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia by drowning which was ante-mortem in nature. The I.O. conducted thorough investigation and came to the conclusion that the allegations regarding the accused having murdered Shri Chanduram were totally unsubstantiated. When proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were undertaken, no such suspicion was cast by any of the family members that the accused Munshi Ram might have murdered Chanduram on account of prior enmity. With this conclusion, a negative final report came to be submitted in the court concerned. 5. Upon the final report being submitted, notice was issued to the petitioner complainant who appeared and filed a protest petition and got 8 witnesses examined in support of her case. The learned Magistrate heard the arguments of the complainant's counsel and proceeded to reject the protest petition/complaint and accepted the negative final report of the police by a detailed order dated 19.08.2011. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision which too was dismissed by the learned revisional court by order dated 16.04.2012 which are assailed in this misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Dr. RDSS Kharlia, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that the impugned orders are illegal as they were passed in sheer ignorance of material facts and evidence available on record and hence, the same cannot be sustained. The trial court as well as the revisional court proceeded on a totally wrong assumption that the witness Minta Singh was not examined in support of the protest petition whereas the fact remains that the actual name of Minta Singh is Sukhvir Singh and he was examined as CW-6 in support of the complaint and gave positive evidence of last seen against the accused. Shri Kharlia further submitted that the complainant's witnesses have given clinching evidence of motive and last seen against the accused and thus, at the stage of taking cognizance, the learned courts below were totally unjustified in appreciating and discarding the complainant's evidence as if, the case was being finally decided. Shri Kharlia further submitted that when postmortem of dead body of Chanduram was undertaken, his left foot was found missing and thus, manifestly he was first brutally beaten, killed and then thrown into the canal. Thus, as per Shri Kharlia, it is a fit case wherein this Court should be persuaded to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned orders and to direct trial of the respondent accused for the offences alleged. 7. Per contra, Shri Shreyansh Ramdeo, learned counsel representing the respondent accused, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. He urged that no allegation was made by the complainant's witnesses regarding the deceased Chanduram having been taken away by the accused Munshi Ram when proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were undertaken. The complainant came out with a case in the complaint that the deceased was murdered and the dead body was thrown into the canal. However, this allegation is contradicted by the postmortem report wherein, the cause of death has been opined to be asphyxia because of ante-mortem drowning. He thus urged that there is no reliable material evidence on the record of the case so as to make the respondent accused stand trial for the offences alleged and sought dismissal of the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that Chandu Ram went missing on 21.07.2010 and his dead body was recovered from the canal on 24.07.2010. The proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were undertaken and the son of the deceased namely Vinod participated therein. At that point of time, no allegation whatsoever was made regarding the deceased having been taken away by the accused or that he might have been murdered owing to prior enmity. The complainant has come out with a clear case that there was a prior enmity between her husband and the accused Munshi Ram who had given a threat to take revenge just a month earlier. 10. The complainant has come out with a clear case that there was a prior enmity between her husband and the accused Munshi Ram who had given a threat to take revenge just a month earlier. 10. In this background, the theory put-forth in the complaint that the deceased accompanied the accused for buying seeds is totally unacceptable and unnatural. A pertinent allegation was made in the complaint that the accused first murdered Shri Chanduram and then threw the body into the canal. This allegation is contradicted by the findings in the postmortem report as per which, cause of death of Shri Chanduram was drowning. Much stress was laid by Shri Kharlia on the aspect that left foot was missing from the dead body. However, this is quite possible because the body kept lying in the canal for almost three days and aquatic animals in the canal might have masticated the limb. No doubt, the observation made by the courts below in the impugned orders regarding Minta Singh not having been examined in support of the protest petition is incorrect because Minta Singh's actual name is Sukhvir Singh and he was examined as CW-6 in support of the protest petition. However, in view of the fact that the version regarding Shri Minta Singh having seen the accused and the deceased together was for the first time, brought to fore after almost 10 days of the incident, makes this entire theory dubitable. 11. In wake of the discussion made herein above, I am of the opinion that the allegations set out by the petitioner complainant in the complaint, the evidence led in support thereof and the material collected by the police, do not provide sufficient material consisting a prima facie case of murder so as to warrant trial of the respondent accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 12. Hence, the impugned order dated 16.04.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar and the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, do not warrant any interference whatsoever by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. As a consequence, the misc. petition fails and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.