JUDGMENT :- Petitioner is father of deceased Aashabai. Aashabai married Ashok Yeshwant Baviskar in the year 1985. Two daughters, namely Pratibha, aged 8 years and Neelima aged 6 years and son namely Nikhil aged 3 years were born within the wedlock. Husband of Aashabai was serving in Ordnance Factory at Varangaon and was living in a quarter allotted to him with his wife and children.

2. On 26th January, 1996; Ashok (husband of the deceased) attended Flag hoisting Ceremony and returned to the house 12.00 noon. At that time, his sister Yashoda had come to their house. There was an exchange of words between deceased Ashabai and her husband Ashok. The deceased accused her husband that he tortures at the instigation of his sister Yashoda. This led to a quarrel, during which Ashok slapped the deceased, as a result, deceased got annoyed, poured kerosene over her and set herself on fire. She was first admitted to a Municipal Hospital at Bhusawal, where her statement was recorded by the Head Constable. On the basis of this statement, offence came to be registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against husband Ashok and sister-in-law Yashoda.

3. The petitioner, however, made a grievance that the investigation was not properly done. At Bhusawal, his daughter made a statement regarding her ill-treatment at the hands of her brother-in-law Tukaram, Dyaneshwar, mother-in-law Rasabai and sisterin-law Pratibha, wife of Tukaram, but this statement was not recorded. Thus, he made a complaint to the high-ranking police officers. Finally, the petitioner filed a private case being R.C.C.No. 27/1996. In that case, in the beginning, report of the police officer was called, under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. This report made a reference to the oral dying declaration, on the basis of which, offence is registered against her husband and sister-in-law Yashoda. As this was a complaint in respect of the offence which was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate recorded the statements of seven witnesses produced by the complainant, including Vitthal Onkar Patil, who recorded 2nd dying declaration in the Civil Hospital at Jalgaon.

4. After considering the material on record, learned Magistrate issued process against all the seven accused by his order dated 17.02.1998. Against this order of issue of process, two separate revision applications were filed. Revision Application filed by husband and his relatives, came to be rejected, whereas the Revision Application filed by respondent no.1, who is cousin brother of husband of the deceased, and a practising Advocate, regarding issue of process .against him, came to be allowed by order dated 2nd July, 1998. This order has been impugned in the present revision petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the contents of para 3 of the private complaint which refer to respondent no.1. According to learned Counsel, at the stage of issue of process, it was not necessary to consider the evidence on merits. The contention that there is no material against respondent no. 1 which should have been considered at the time of framing of the charge. According to learned Counsel, the order of revisional court is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, according to the learned Counsel for the respondents the revisional court has considered all the legal and factual aspects and has rightly arrived at the conclusion that issuance of process against respondent no. 1 was not justified. No illegality can be found with the order passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon. Therefore, no interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction is called for.

7. The principles to be applied at the stage of issuance of process are now well settled. The Magistrate has to apply his mind to the facts placed before him. If he comes to a conclusion that prima facie case has been made out, the Magistrate can issue process against the accus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document