Order : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . Cr. Rev. No. 1789 of 2018 1. Cr. Revision No.1789 of 2018 is preferred against the order dated 10.08.2018 passed in S.T. Case No.295 of 2016 [arising out of Saraidhella P.S. Case No.33 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the discharge petition of the petitioner has been rejected and the learned Trial Court held that prima facie case is made out under Sections 498A, 494 and 328 of the I.P.C. 2. Sachidanand Ray [in Cr. Revision No.1789 of 2018] is the husband/accused in the FIR lodged by his wife on 12.05.2016, that she got married to him in the year 2008 and a son was born from their wedlock. 3. It is alleged that after few months of the marriage, informant was subjected to cruelty in reference to a dowry demand of Rs.10 Lakh and the petitioner abetted her to commit suicide. It is also alleged that the petitioner performed a second marriage with one Sandhya Kumari on 19.04.2016 which became the proverbial last straw driving the informant to lodge the case. 4. Learned Trial Court has rejected the petition filed for discharge considering the statements made in Paras 67, 69 and 70 of the case diary where the witnesses have supported the case. 5. Cr. M. P. No.4197 of 2018 has been filed challenging the order taking cognizance under Sections 498A, 306, 328 of the I.P.C by the Learned trial Court against the in-laws of the informant. 6. Cognizance was initially taken under Section 306 of the IPC, which was dropped later at the stage of framing of charge on the basis of Letter No. 364 dated 21.02.2018 of the Officer-in-Charge, Saraidhella Police Station addressed to the Addl. Sessions Judge-XV on mistake of fact. Therefore, there is no material whatsoever with respect to the cognizance under Section 306 of the I.P.C. 7. With regard to order of cognizance under Sections 498A and Section 328 of the IPC, it is submitted by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1789 of 2018 that from para 59 of the case diary, it is apparent that the poison was not administered, rather it was self-consumed by the complainant. In this view of the matter, there is no prima facie material for framing of charge under Section 328 of the I.P.C. 8. Revision No. 1789 of 2018 that from para 59 of the case diary, it is apparent that the poison was not administered, rather it was self-consumed by the complainant. In this view of the matter, there is no prima facie material for framing of charge under Section 328 of the I.P.C. 8. A plea that the informant was not the legally married wife of the petitioner has been pressed into motion, which cannot be pressed too far at this stage, in view of the Marriage Registration Certificate of the informant with- Sachidanand Ray @ Sachidanand Rai. Photocopy of the marriage registration certificate is produced before the Court and is part of the case diary. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the marriage was not only solemnized, but also was given effect to by a registered marriage Certificate and her name was also reflected in the service book as the nominee. Further, the child born from their wedlock was also named as the nominee. Photocopy of the service book has been produced for perusal of this Court. 9. Therefore, this plea has no legs to stand, and is accordingly rejected at this stage. Cr.M.P. No.4917 of 2018 10. In Cr. M. P. No. 4197 of 2018, against the order taking cognizance it is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that final form was submitted for want of evidence with respect to these petitioners by the police during investigation. However, cognizance has been taken by the impugned order considering the statement of the informant in para- 44 of the case diary and other witnesses in paras-67, 69 and 70 of the case diary. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced the case diary for the perusal of this Court. It is argued that part of the prosecution case of administering poison has been falsified during investigation wherein, at para-59 it has been found that poison was not administered, but it was self-consumed. Petitioners were not even sharing the common household and have been implicated in the case out of vengeance. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 that in the F.I.R, there is direct and specific allegation against the family members. So far as the family members are concerned, from the certificate of marriage produced before this Court, a formal marriage appears to have been registered on 24.02.2018. 11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 that in the F.I.R, there is direct and specific allegation against the family members. So far as the family members are concerned, from the certificate of marriage produced before this Court, a formal marriage appears to have been registered on 24.02.2018. Even if it is assumed that the marriage did take place with effect from 18.10.2008, there is no material to show that the family members lived together and shared the household with the informant and petitioner-Sachidanand Ray @ Sachidanand Rai so as to give them an opportunity of doing so. 12. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, and the materials on record including the case diary produced by the parties, it is evident that the allegation is mainly against petitioner- Sachidanand Ray. As stated earlier, the marital status is established on the basis of copy of the marriage registration certificate and the entries in the service record of the informant as Sachidananda Ray's wife. It is evident that marriage was registered in 2018, but it was effective from 2008. 13. Charge of administering poison is not substantiated by any evidence, on the contrary in para-59 extract of the letter of Assistant Professor of Unit-2 Department of Medicine, PMCH has been extracted, which discounts the allegation of poison being administered and has stated that it was self-consumed. There is no other medical evidence in support of the allegation that the informant was subjected to assault. In this view of matter, it is difficult to countenance the prosecution case that informant was administered poison or was assaulted by the petitioners. Such a proposition runs counter to para-59 of the CD. Thus, the order of cognizance under Section 328 of the IPC is not sustainable against any of the Petitioners including accused Sachidananda Ray, and is accordingly set aside. 14. Petitioners in Cr. M.P No. 4197 of 2018 are the in-laws of the complainant. The police had submitted final form and cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate considering the case diary. As discussed above charge under Section 306 was dropped, and charge has not been framed under this section. For reasons discussed above, cognizance order under Section 328 has been held to be not sustainable. They cannot face charge under Section 494 of the IPC. As discussed above charge under Section 306 was dropped, and charge has not been framed under this section. For reasons discussed above, cognizance order under Section 328 has been held to be not sustainable. They cannot face charge under Section 494 of the IPC. Matter for consideration is, whether order of cognizance under Section 498 A is sustainable against them? 15. As per the prosecution case, marriage was solemnized in the year 2008 and the FIR has been lodged in 2016. Allegation of dowry demand of Rs 10,00,000/- coming up after eight years of the marriage does not inspires any confidence. There is no material to suggest that there was any past complaint against the in-laws for dowry or unlawful demand being made by them or that they subjected the informant to cruelty or harassment. There is not a chit of paper to substantiate the allegation of assault coming in the marital life of about eight years when a child was born from the wed lock. The immediate trigger to the marital dispute which lead to the lodging of the FIR on 12.05.2016, was the alleged second marriage performed by the accused Sachidananda Ray to Sandhya Kumari on 14.04.2016. 16. Against this backdrop, the statement of the informant against the in-laws cannot be accepted at its face value as it is also against the findings of investigation. Under the circumstance, the order taking cognizance against the Petitioners in Saraidhella P.S. Case No. 33 of 2016 (G.R. No. 1889 of 2016) is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, Cr. M.P No. 4197 of 2018 is allowed 17. So far as Cr. Rev. No.1789 of 2018 is concerned there is merit in plea for discharge for the offence under Section 328 IPC and the order for framing of charge is set aside. However, there is no infirmity in the order for framing of charge under Sections 498A and 494 of the IPC against accused Sachidanand Ray. Criminal Revision accordingly stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.