At the stage of framing charges, 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.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Instant criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 /401 Cr.P.C against the order dated 16.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 56/2016 whereby, the learned Judge ordered to frame charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a written report has been filed by the complainant Bhartendra Singh before the S.H.O, Police Station Sukher, udaipur in which he stated that her daughter Karnika was married to Dr. Himanshu on 25.01.2016. the husband was working at Geetanjali Hospital and daughter of complainant was also working in a private firm. Both the husband and wife resided at Flora complex, Bhuwana, Udaipur. After few days of marriage, his daughter started keeping sad and upset. She narrated to her mother and sister that her husband is harassing her mentally and physically and she was not happy. On 28.05.2016, the complainant's daughter was called at Porbandar where she was treated by one doctor at the instigation of husband, father-in-law and mother-inlaw and some tests were conducted on her private parts which were very painful. It is stated that the doctor was known to her father-in-law. She narrated this incident to younger sister Devika. Thereafter, she came from Porbandar to Udaipur on 01.06.2016. She told her mother that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law were harassing her on small issues. On the next day i.e. 02.06.2016, the complainant's wife and younger sister took lunch for Karnika but they were told that Karnika had not come to office. When they reached home, the door was shut and there was no response from inside. After breaking the door they found Karnika hanging by ceiling fan. They immediately took her to hospital where the doctor declared her dead.

3. On this report, the police registered a case and started investigation. After due investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the present petitioner as well as husband Dr. Himanshu for the offence under Sections 498A, 306, 304B IPC. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Udaipur whereby, arguments on the charge were heard. Thereafter, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge ordered to frame charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B IPC. Hence, this present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Pankaj Gupta alongwith Mr. P.C. Solanki vehemently argued that no offence under Sections 498A, 306 or 304B IPC IPC is made out against the petitioner as the incident took place on 02.06.2016 and on the same day the complainant filed a report before the Police Station, Sukher where proceedings under Section 176 Cr.P.C , 1973were initiated. In that written report, the complainant has not mentioned about harassment meted out by the petitioner father-in-law. Petitioner is the father-in-law who resided at Porbandar, Gujarat. ON the next day, i.e. 03.06.2016, again a written report was submitted by the complainant before the police in which also the complainant did not mention any demand of dowry or harassment by the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner is a retired C.M.H.O at present aged about 68 years of age. While drawing attention of this Court towards the statements of mother of deceased Smt. Darshana, sister of deceased Ms. Devika, it is argued that no demand of dowry or harassment by the petitioner has been mentioned by them. It is argued that the investigating officer gave notice to the doctors to inquire whether the investigation conducted on the deceased was necessary and whether the doctor was competent or not. A detailed reply was submitted by the doctor informing that the patient was unable to perform sexual intercourse since her marriage so the investigation was necessary and the doctor was also competent. He submits that after about