JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have filed this revision petition under section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 1/2/1997 whereby he framed charges against the petitioners for offences u /ss. 304-B, 201 and 498-A IPC. 2. The relevant facts are that Chotharam lodged a written report before the S.H.O. Police Station Kuchaman City in which he alleged that he married his daughter Chandraval to Birjuram s/o Ratnaram some 4 or 5 years ago. For some time Chandraval lived without any problem but thereafter Birjuram husband, Ratnaram father-in-law and Uma Devi mother-in-law started harassing Chandraval as according to them she had not brought enough dowry in her marriage. Chothuram tried to settle the matter but did not succeed and eventually he brought Chandraval to his house. At the time of the marriage of Manju d/o Ratnaram he sent Chandraval to the house of her in-laws at the pursuation of certain respectable persons of the village. It is alleged that on 20.7.1996 the husband, father-in-law and the mother-in-law committed murder of Chandraval and this information was conveyed to Chothuram by Girdhariram. On this report, the police registered a case and after investigation filed challan. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate has framed the above charges against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by no stretch of arguments can the accused be said to have committed offences under sections 304-B and 498-A which can only be said to have been committed by the husband or the relatives of her husband. The allegation against the petitioner is only that they participated in the cremation of Chandraval. 4. I have perused relevant documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and I am satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in framing charges under sections 304-B and 498-A against the petitioners. Regarding charge under section 201, learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed for the same. 5. For the above reasons I partly allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge as regards framing of charges under sections 304-B and 498-A IPC against the petitioners.Revision allowed. *******