Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned AGA for the State.

2. This revision has been filed by revisionists namely Jayanti Prasad, Rajesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Smt. Mando Devi, Virendra Kumar Gupta and Smt. Bhama @ Manjoo against order dated 1.9.1997 passed by Sri Anil Kumar, Judicial Magistrate III, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 414 of 1997 (State vs. Anil Kumar Gupta and Others), Crime No. 297/93 under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Fatehganj East, District Bareilly whereby charges have been framed against revisionists and Anil Kumar Gupta, husband of opposite party No. 2/informant.

3. Opposite party No. 2/informant lodged an FIR dated 10.12.1993 stating therein that marriage of opposite party no. 2/informant was solemnized with accused Anil Kumar Gupta, son of revisionist No. 1 Jayanti Prasad on 4.5.1992. Revisionists demanded Rs. 40,000/- scooter and Maruti as dowry in second Bidai. Her husband had gone back to Fatehganj on 3.12.1993. On 5.12.1993 her father-in-law took her from Bareilly to Fatehganj. On the next day, above revisionists and her husband beat her with slippers in the field situated across the railway line and took her to the police station. The revisionists again demanded Rs. 40,000/- and share in the house of her father. They snatched her ornaments from her. The revisionists also poured kerosene oil on her body and attempted to kill her. On this FIR, charge-sheet was submitted by the police after investigation. Court below has taken cognizance and framed charges against above revisionists and husband Anil Kumar Gupta.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that opposite party No. 2/informant filed an affidavit on 13.11.1997 before the Court below stating that she is residing with her husband and she has no complaint against him. Opposite party no. 2 has also appeared before the Court below and filed her Parcha Pairvi in favour of husband Anil Kumar Gupta for bail. Learned counsel further contended that the FIR lodged by opposite party no. 2 is absolutely false and concocted and the Court below has not applied its judicial mind.

5. Learned counsel for revisionists has further submitted that revisionist no. 1/father-in-law and opposite party no. 2/informant have died, hence no fruitful purpose would be served to initiate trial of accused revisionists No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 who are brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law.

6. Learned AGA has admitted the fact of death of revisionist no. 1/father-in-law and opposite party no. 2/informant.

7. It is admitted fact by the parties that neither any written compromise was filed before the trial Court nor accepted or verified by it.

8. The offences under Section 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Specific allegations have been made in the FIR against revisionists. Poonam Gupta, informant was examined before the trial Court as PW-1 who has supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded on 11.9.1997.

9. Under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. the Revisional Court has power to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed by the Court below.

10. It is pertinent to mention Section 239 Cr.P.C. and Section 240 Cr.P.C. which are as follows:-

Section 239 Cr.P.C. If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

Section 240 Cr.P.C. (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and