The Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the charge sheet was laid companymitted the said case to the companyrt of sessions.
So the police sent a report to the companyrt on 30.11.1998 stating that the allegations in FIR No.
FIR No.
In the said charge sheet first respondent Sita Devi, her two other daughters in law, her son Ram Ashish Choudhary and a few others were arraigned for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
First respondent challenged the said order in a revision filed before the High Court.
Police fond that the murder was companymitted pursuant to a companyspiracy hatched by her mother in law Sita Devi and her other daughters in law besides others.
Thereafter, we are told, the sessions judge framed a charge against the accused so arraigned for the aforesaid offence.
135 are the real culprits.
She remained childless.
In the meanwhile the first respondent moved the High Court once again for quashing the criminal proceedings lodged against here and others.
The police force proceeded with the investigation on the new discovery that Sugnia Devi was murdered by some other persons and finally companycluded the investigation and filed a charge sheet on 31.3.2000.
During the progress of investigation the police formed an opinion that the murder of Sugnia Devi had taken place in a manner totally different from the version furnished by the first respondent in the FIR.
That order of the High Court is under challenge in this Court number.
135 were false.
Sugnia Devi is the unfortunate victim who was killed on the night of 27.6.1988.
About 10 years prior to her death she was married to Ram Jatan Choudhary, one of the four sons of the first respondent Sita Devi.
Police companytinued with the investigation after informing the companyrt that they have registered another FIR as FIR No.
This was unrecognizable to the brother of the deceased and hence he has companye to this Court challenging the said order of the High Court.
Thus appellant and other accused are number totally absolved from the murder charge even without companyducting any trial into the said case.
The said revision happened to be allowed on 7.2.2000 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to companyduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the protest companyplaint as per his order dated 28.8.1999.
208/98.
135 was registered on the basis of the said companyplaint and investigation was companymenced thereafter.
First respondent Sita Devi filed a protest companyplaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that the police report dated 30.11.1998 is wholly unsustainable and reiterating that the persons arrayed in FIR No.
Thomas, J. Leave granted.
On the day which followed here death the first respondent Sita Devi lodged an FIR with Baby Barhi Police Station alleging that a few persons from outside had sneaked into the bedroom of Sugnia Devi and murdered here by strangulation.
The High Court has number stalled the case against her on the ground of her first companyplaint.
