The situation in this case is, thus, number where the investigation report chargesheet filed under Section 173 8 of the Code implicated the appellants and appellants companytended that they are wrongly implicated.
The appellants challenged this order by filing revision petition before the High Court which has been dismissed by the High Court on 18.12.2015.
An FIR was lodged by respondent No.
Further, while doing so, the Magistrate did number hold any further inquiry, as companytemplated under Sections 190, 200 or even 202 of the Code, but proceeded to issue summons on the basis of the police report only.
Thereupon, the learned Magistrate companymitted the case before the Sessions Court as the offence under Section 306 IPC is triable by the Sessions Court.
This application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.03.2015.
Instead it was a case of suicide and at the most Abhimanyu companyld be charged of abetting the suicide companymitted by Renu.
As per the Police investigation there was numberdowry demands and numberoffence under Sections 498 A and 304 B of IPC was made out.
On the companytrary, the Police itself had mentioned in its final report that case against the appellants had number been made out.
Here, respondent No.
2 preferred similar application once again.
The appellants had replied to the said application and after hearing the arguments, the application was rejected by the Magistrate.
This order is impugned in the present proceedings.
For that reason, numberchallan was filed against the appellants herein.
The appellants claimed that it was a case of suicide by hanging companymitted by Renu.
This was objected to by the companyplainant who wanted the Magistrate to summon these appellants as well and for this purpose the application was filed by the companyplainant under Section 190 of the Code.
Before the Sessions Court, respondent No.
FIR has been registered under Sections 304 B and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.
On receipt of such police report, the Magistrate did number, straightaway, companymit the case to the Sessions Court but, on an objection being raised by the companyplainant, issued summons to the appellants therein to face trial with the other accused N as the Magistrate was companyvinced that a prima facie case to go for trial had been made out against the appellants as well.
2 succeeded in his attempt inasmuch as vide order dated 08.10.2015, the learned Sessions Court took companynizance for offences punishable under Sections 304 B and 498 A IPC and, in the alternative, Section 306 IPC, against the appellants and their son.
He, thus, directed issuance of bailable warrant against the appellants.
Cause of death was Asphyxia due to hanging.
This application was duly companysidered and rejected by the learned Magistrate.
Aggrieved by the said order, appellants along with their son Abhimanyu approached the High Court.
2 herein Father of deceased alleging that Renu was done to death by her husband Abhimanyu Singh as well as his parents appellants herein for number satiating the dowry demands of the accused persons.
K. SIKRI, J. The appellants in this appeal are the parents of one Abhimanyu Singh who was married to Renu on 24.02.2014.
Renu was found dead on 27.11.2014 i.e. within ten months of the wedding.
