PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.

1. Petitioner-complainant has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 16.05.2018 passed by Additional District Judge Woman Atrocities Cases No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the Court below has rejected the prayer of complainant for sending the matter for re-investigation and has refused to take cognizance against respondents No. 3 to 7. Petitioner has also challenged the order vide which charges have been framed under Section 498-A & 306 of I.P.C. and in alternative under Section 304-B of I.P.C. Prayer in this regard is that charges should have been framed under Section 304-B, 498-A, 406, 201 and 120-B of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same order petitioner Mukesh Budhania has preferred revision petition for quashing and setting-aside the order dated 16.05.2018. As both the revision petitions pertain to common order, both are decided by this common order.

2. In brief the factual matrix of the case are that an FIR No. 193/2017 was registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (South) with the allegation that complainant’s daughter has been killed by her in-laws namely; Mukesh Budaniya, Ramnath, Satyanarayan and other family members for not being able to meet their demand for dowry. Petitioner-Complainant apprehending collusion of the Investigating Officer with the accused-persons filed a Criminal Misc. Petition and High Court directed the Investigating Officer to make fair investigation. The Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet only against Mukesh Budaniya. The complainant thereafter, moved an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against other accused-persons i.e. respondents No. 3 to 7. The said application was dismissed by the Court below.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the marriage of petitioner’s daughter with Mukesh Budaniya took place on 05.02.2014. She was continuously harassed on the ground of dowry. On 30.04.2017 Ramnath, father-in-law of the deceased rang up the petitioner and demanded dowry or to face the consequences. Complainant met Ramnath and Satyanarayan and assured them that he would try to arrange for the amount of Rs. 2 lacs which was demanded by Ramnath. On the same day at 8.50 pm, Mukesh informed the petitioner-complainant that his daughter Shaifali has died. Petitioner immediately rushed to her daughter’s house, he found that her in-laws were busy in their routine work. They were shocked to find Shaifali lying died on her bed. The FSL Mobile team which came to the spot took finger prints of the deceased and lifted finger prints the ceiling fan. After considering the width of the ligature marks on the body of the deceased, the Mobile FSL team opined that the same was not caused by Chunni. It is contended that the Court below has in summary manner dismissed the application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. without assigning any reason and has erred in framing charges in the alternative under Section 304-B IPC against Mukesh Budhaniya.

4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners-complainant that the investigation was not fair. Deceased was murdered and to cover up the offence, it was shown as suicide. It is argued that the deceased was lying on the bed, the ligature mark was less than 1 c.m. the dust on the fan was intact hence, it was not established that the deceased committed suicide. Further, there was no stretching of the Chunni and there was twisting in the ligature mark found on the neck of the deceased.

5. It is also contended that the page of diary which was handed over to the Police was not established to be written just prior to the death of the deceased. The diary was of the year 2011 and the note was undated. Pages of diary were missing and the other diaries which were seized were not proved to be in the handwriting of the deceased. Hence, the same cannot be considered as a suicide note.

6. It is also contended that there was specific evidence to the effect that there was demand of dowry soon bef