At the stage of cognizance, the court is not required to conduct a mini trial and consider the evidentiary value of the materials available against the accused persons.

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

The petitioners namely, Bhimasen Jena, Kanaka @Bishnupriya Jena, Nini @ Sumitra Kumari Jena, Kuni @ Sunita Kumari Jena, Mami @ Sanghamitra Jena, Mitu @ Sanjib Kumar Jena and Tutu @ Sunil Kumar Jena have filed this Criminal Revision challenging the impugned order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput passed in G.R. Case No.498 of 2009, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 498(A)/304(B)/306/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”) read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ( in short “the DP Act”).

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the marriage of the petitioner and Petitioner No. 5 had been solemnized on 04.07.2007. There was demand of dowry of Rs 6 lakhs. At the time of marriage, apart from household articles, jewellery, cash of Rs.3,50,000/- had been paid. Rs.50,000/- had been paid towards cost of a motorcycle. For the balance amount of dowry, the deceased was regularly tortured. She had narrated about the demand and ill treatment whenever she went to her parents house, before her parents, other family members and friends. When the torture became unbearable, she committed suicide inside her bedroom by hanging herself from the ceiling fan. An UD case had been initially registered. FIR was lodged by the deceased’s father - Surendra Nath Patra, S/o late Arakhita Patra, after he received phone call from his son-in-law Sunil Kumar Jena that his daughter Reena (Bimala) has died. When asked about the cause of death, his son-in-law replied that his father, mother and sisters have hanged the body of the Reena and to come immediately.

3. On the basis of the F.I.R. dated 17.10.2009, Koraput Town P.S. Case No. 98 of 2009 was registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498 (A)/304 (B)/302/34 IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act against Bhimasen Jena – father-in-law, Kanaka Jena – mother-in-law, and Nini, Mami and Kuni ( the three sisters-in-law).

4. On the complaint of the informant before the Odisha Human Rights Commission ( in short “the OHRC”) regarding biased and improper investigation and its order dated 27.05.2010 in Case No.1543 of 2009 and consequent CID, CB Office Order No.93/CID dated 18.06.2010, investigation was taken up by the CID, CB, Orissa and CID, CB Orissa, Cuttack P.S case No.12 of 2010 dated 18.06.2010 was registered. Witnesses were examined afresh by the DSP, CID and after completion of investigation, chargesheet No.65 dated 20.07.2011 was submitted against all the petitioners for commission of the offences under Sections 498(A)/304(B)/306/406/34 IPC read with Section 4 of D.P. Act.

5. Petitioner No.1 - Bhimasen Jena is the father-in-law of the deceased, Petitioner No.2- Kanaka @ Bishnupriya Jena is the mother-in-law, Petitioner No.3- Nini @ Sumitra Kumari Jena, Petitioner No. 4- Kuni @ Sunita Kumari Jena and Petitioner No. 5 Mami @ Sanghamitra Jena are the sisters-in-law (nanandas) of the deceased, Petitioner No. 6 Mitu @ Sanjib Kumar Jena is the brother-in-law (diara) and Petitioner No. 7 Tutu @ Sunil Kumar Jena is the husband of the deceased.

6. On perusal of case record i.e. C.D. No. XVIII to 54, statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of witnesses, property seizure memo, crime detail form, spot map, spot visit report, examination report of S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh and other relevant documents are received from C.I.D., C.B., Orissa, Cuttack, the learned SDJM Koraput found existence of prima facie materials against the petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 498-A/304-B/306/406/34 IPC and Section–4 of the D.P. Act and took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against all seven accused persons by order dated 03.08.2011.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even assuming all the allegations on record to be true, no offence whatsoever is made out for proceeding against the Petitioner No. 7- Tutu @ Sunil Kumar Jena, the husband of the deceased. Referring to the F.I.R., he submits that the same has be