( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issue of a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by IV Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Basti dated 13-5-2002 in Criminal Case No. 160 of 2001 State v. Shiv Prasad Pandey punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 504, 323, IPC, P. S. Chhawani District Basti and the order dated 28-6-2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Revision No. 269 of 2002 and for quashing the order issuing non bailable warrant against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 160 of 2001.

( 2 ) ON 25-5-1998 at 4. 30 p. m. Smt. Tara Devi opposite party No. 2 lodged a report against the petitioner and two other accused under Sections 498-A, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act with the allegations that she was married with the petitioner according to Hindu rites and her gauna ceremony was performed 5 years ago. Her father had given Rs. 2,500. 00 cash, golden ring, golden chain and other things in dowry. The petitioner Shiv Prasad Pandey and his father Ram Munnar Pandey and mother Smt. Rajpati Devi started further demand of dowry and they started treating her with cruelty. Prior to three or four days of lodging of report, she was turned out of her matrimonial home by her husband.

( 3 ) ON the basis of above report, a case at crime No. 89 of 1998 under Section 498a, IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. It further appears that after investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner alone under Sections 498a, 323, 504 and 306, IPC.

( 4 ) ON receipt of charge-sheet in the Court cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. The petitioner moved an application on 13-5-2002 before the magistrate (Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) IV/ Magistrate) Basti for dropping the proceedings under S. 306 IPC on the ground that the complainant Smt. Tara Devi was alive and was living with him. He had also filed compromise and S. 306 IPC was wrongly shown in the charge-sheet.

( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate on considering the case of the parties held that according to Sections mentioned in the charge-sheet case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and therefore, he cannot drop the proceedings. With these findings he rejected the application, vide order dated 13-5-2002.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED with the order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 269 of 2002 before the Session Judge, Basti. Learned Sessions Judge on hearing the learned counsel for the parties held as below :-"the contention of the learned counsel for the accused revisionist is that undisputedly Smt. Tara Devi is alive and in the circumstances, the offence under S. 306 IPC cannot be made out. On the factual matrix the submission of the learned counsel for the accused is not disputed. It is also admitted to the learned State counsel that wife Smt. Tara Devi is alive. From the perusal of the case diary, I find statements of other witnesses including the mother of Smt. Tara Devi to the effect that in an attempt to commit suicide from the cruel acts and behaviour of the revisionist, Smt. Tara Devi jumped into Saryu river and she was saved. In such circumstances, even if the offence under S. 306 IPC was not completed at this stage, the offence under S. 306 IPC read with S. 511 of IPC cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, the approach of the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be illegal. "

( 7 ) HE further held that revision was preferred against an interlocutory order and the applicant was at liberty to raise this point before the Sessions Judge. With these findings, he dismissed the revision and the impugned order of the Magistrate was sustained to the extent that question of sustainability of the offence under S. 306 IPC read with S. 511 IPC can be seen at the time of framing of charge.

( 8 ) THE above orders of the Magistrate and Revisional Court have been challenged in this writ petition.

( 9 ) THE fact that the complai