This revision is directed against the order dated 22.11.2011 whereby the application for discharge was partly rejected holding that no prima facie case is made out for the offence under Section 304A IPC however the trial court held that prima facie case is made out for the offence under Section 498A IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that F.I.R was instituted under sections 302,498A and 34 IPC against the petitioner-Hitesh Verma and his parents, namely, Kirti Prasad Verma and Sarojbala Verma. That after investigation charge-sheet was submitted exonerating the parents of the charges for the offence under Section 498A and 302 IPC, however, investigation was kept pending against the petitioner whereafter, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 498A and 304 IPC. It is urged that by the impugned order the trial court discharged the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A IPC but rejected the petition for discharge for the offence under Section 498A IPC. That on the application of the petitioner further investigation was ordered in terms of Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. and the matter was investigated by the C.I.D and the Investigating Officer of the present case found the allegation to be false. That the Sessions Court declined the application of the petitioner to call for the further investigation reports of the C.I.D and the police whereafter, the Petition bearing Cr. Writ petition bearing W.P.(Cri.) NO.304/2008 was preferred and by order dated 10.07.2009, the High Court set aside the order of the Addl. Judicial Commissioner with the direction to the trial court to consider and call for the enquiry report dated 17.12.2006 along with the documents which form part of the report dated 10.03.2008 at the time of framing of charge.

3. It is argued that the trial court has failed to appreciate that earlier when the matter was posted for hearing on the point of charge then by order dated 05.03.2011(Annexure-4) on query by the court as to what are the ingredients for framing charge for the offence under Section 498A IPC, the prosecution submitted that it is only pressing the charge for the offence under Section 304A IPC and not for the offence under Section 498A IPC meaning thereby that the prosecution conceded that there is no material on record to make out a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC. That the allegation in the FIR regarding torture, demand of dowry and ill-treatment by the petitioner is not supported by the materials on record but the trial court without appreciating the facts and without assigning any reason rejected the petition in part.

4. It is urged that the son, Avnish Satyang, In para 52 of the case diary, has stated that there was sweet relationship between his parents. He has not whispered a word about torture, assault or cruelty by this petitioner which is also noted in the C.I.D report dated 17.07.2005. Awnish's statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate which is enclosed at pages 265 to 268 of the C.I.D. Report.

5. It is pointed out that the family doctors, attached to C.C.L. where the petitioner was an employee, and the doctor of the Apollo Hospital also did not find any injury on the person of the informant's daughter. That the allegation regarding demand and payment in the FIR and as per para 3 of the case diary that Rs.30,000/- was paid to the mother of the petitioner, as per the statement of informant and one Santosh Kumar in para 29 of the case diary, was verified and investigated and as per para 41 of the supplementary case diary it was found that during the said period the mother of the petitioner was in America, accordingly, allegation of payment of Rs.30,000/-was found to be false. That as per para 54 of the case diary wherein it is mentioned that Rs.51,000/- was deposited In the account of deceased-Sanjana Verma for the mundan Ceremony of her daughter and the said money was never withdrawn. That Dr. Rai Chandinath Sahay, in para 60 of the supplementary case diar