M.N. Bhandari, J.By this petition, a challenge is made to the order taking cognisance of offence and further proceedings against the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel tor the petitioners submits that on an FIR registered for offence under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC, investigation was conducted by the police followed by charge sheet against the husband. The investigation against the present petitioners was kept pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. After sometime, the Police filed charge sheet against the petitioners also on 7th August, 2007, which is almost after three years. No investigation was further caused after keeping it pending under Section, 173(8) of Cr.P.C. in view of the above, when no evidence was further collected by the Police against the petitioners, there was no occasion for them to file charge sheet after three years, if the evidence was already existing, then charge sheet should have been filed in the year 2003 itself with the add of Section 299 Cr.RC. The investigation once kept pending under Section 173 (8) of Cr.RC. charge sheet can be filed after collection of sub-material and not as an empty formality. In view of the above, charge sheet as well as order of cognisance of offence deserve to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also made reference of the statements of father of deceased, who has admitted that whatever amount was given in dowry, it was transferred in the name of her daughter for purchase of a plot. Effectively, he has not made allegations against the present petitioners, rather the conduct of the petitioners explained by them shows that offence was not committed by the petitioners under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC. The aforesaid supports as to why investigation against the petitioners was kept pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.RC. The police was not having sufficient material to file charge sheet against the petitioners but then for the reasons best known and without evidence, the charge sheet was filed after three years. The aforesaid facts shows conduct of police or filing charge sheet in a casual manner.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel on the complainant/s opposed petition.

5. It is submitted that charge sheet against one accused was submitted looking to the fact that period of 90 days after his arrest was expiring. It was kept pending against the present petitioners under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.c. to collect further evidence as interrogation of the petitioners was to be made and for that reasons, it was kept pending. The charge sheet was filed after a lapse of three years finding a case against the petitioners. The letter of the deceased was sufficient to show involvement of the petitioners for causing offence by them, thus the Court below has rightly took cognisance of the offence against the petitioners, hence, it may not be interfered.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is not in dispute that while the charge sheet was filed against one accused, investigation against the present petitioners was kept pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. The charge sheet was thereupon filed after a lapse of three years. Learned Public Prosecutor so as the learned counsel for the complainant could not give justification for keeping investigation period for three years and thereafter filing charge sheet when - material was collected in the intervening period. The investigation cannot be kept pending in a casual manner by invoking Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. but should be with the purpose. If the Police was to collect further evidence and even if argument of learned counsel for the complainant is accepted that it was for interrogation, then no interrogation was made. The facts available on record does not show that evidence was collected by the Police during the intervening period, i.e., after filing of charge sheet against one accused. In view of the above, the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are substantiated.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred the judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Quayyum Akhtar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2005(1) RCC 314. Therein, supplementary charge sheet was filed without collection of further evidence after Invoking Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. The Court interfered in the order and allowed the petition. Similarly, in the case of Nooruddin & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1999(1) Crimes 493, challenge was made to supplementary charge sheet. Therein, it was held that charge sheet can be filed if on further investigation, fresh evidence is collected. If the case in hand is considered, subsequent charge sheet is after keeping investigation pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.RC. and when further investigation was caused, no material was collected. Even interrogation was not made to justify the action of the Police to keep the investigation pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.RC. and subsequent filing of charge sheet. In view of above, the present care is covered by the judgements supra.

9. It is also a fact that in the statements of father of deceased, he has categorically stated that whatever amount was given in dowry, was transferred in the name of his daughter and it is by non-else but by the petitioner No.2-Raghu Nath Prasad Sharma. It is further stated that anytime, he had offered money to the petitioner during the course of marriage, accused No.2 asked him to keep that amount to purchase a house for his daughter. The aforesaid statements is by none-else but by the deceaseds father. The aforesaid supports the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners to justify the police to keep the investigation pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.RC. Looking to the evidence, the Investigating Agency did not find sufficient material for filing charge sheet against the petitioners, thus it was kept pending and it is not in dispute that subsequently, no material was collected before filing of charge sheet.

10. In view of the above, order taking cognisance of offence and further proceedings cannot be allowed to stand against the petitioners, accordingly the same are quashed.

11. With the aforesaid, this criminal misc. petition stands allowed.

12. Record of the Court below be sent back.