JUDGMENT 1. - A short point which arises for determination in the instant revision is related to the scope and ambit of an order of charge framed under Section 304-B read with Section 109 of the I.RC. against the petitioner by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City, vide its order dated September 24th, 1996. 2. First Information Report was lodged by one Ashok Kumar with the Police Station, Hindaun City against Dinesh, Kamlesh, mother of Dinesh and the petitioner Jayanti Lal on October 29th, 1994 with the allegations that Beena, his younger sister was married with Dinesh on November 25th, 1987. Enough dowry was given in the marriage, but the demand of Scooter and Fridge used to be made by Dinesh and his family members and when demand was not fulfilled, Dinesh and his family started harassing Beena. On September 25th, 1994 the informant received a letter written by his sister in the month of October, 1994. The informant went to Jamalpur and met Beena where he was intimated that Dinesh and his family members harassed her and 'Mousa' of Dinesh, the petitioner was also party to this conspiracy. The husband of Beena and his family members thereafter, entered into a conspiracy and committed murder of Beena. A case under Section 304-B was registered and after investigation Police Station, Hindaun City submitted a charge-sheet against Dinesh, Kamlesh, Smt. Ramwati and Jayanti Lal (present petitioner). 3. Learned trial court, vide its order dated September 24th, 1996 framed charge under Section 304-B read with Section 109 of the I.PC. against the petitioner. Against this order that the present action of filing this revision has been resorted to. 4. 3. Learned trial court, vide its order dated September 24th, 1996 framed charge under Section 304-B read with Section 109 of the I.PC. against the petitioner. Against this order that the present action of filing this revision has been resorted to. 4. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar reported in 1979 Cr.L.J. 154 their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded following principles in respect of framing of the charges : "(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 22 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; (3) The test to determine a prima-facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to law down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused; (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post- Office or a mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial." I shall now apply the principles enunciated above to the present case and find out whether or not the court below was legally justified in framing the charge under. Section 304-B read with Section 109 of the IPC against the accused-petitioner. 5. Admittedly, petitioner Jayanti Lal was residing separately from the family of Dinesh, Kamlesh, mother of Dinesh and deceased Beena. Section 304-B read with Section 109 of the IPC against the accused-petitioner. 5. Admittedly, petitioner Jayanti Lal was residing separately from the family of Dinesh, Kamlesh, mother of Dinesh and deceased Beena. A perusal of the charge-sheet goes to show that the petitioner Jayanti Lal is residing in Mohan Nagar, whereas other co-accused are residing in Jamalupur. The only allegation against petitioner Jayanti Lal is that he abated the offence under Section 304-B. In the First Information Report, it has been stated that the petitioner was also part and parcel of the conspiracy. A post Card alleged to have been written by the deceased has been produced with the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer. I have properly scrutinised the Post Card, but reference of the petitioner has not been made in the said Post Card by the deceased. In the statement recorded under Section 161 it has been stated by Ashok Kumar that on pursuation of Jayanti Lal, dowry was demanded by the co-accused persons. Anup Chand Jain, a friend of Ashok Kumar also stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that deceased Beena informed him that on the instigation of Jayanti Lal dowry was demanded by her husband and relatives. Similar statements were given by Girish Mittal, Virendra Kumar, Brij Mohan Lal, Murari Lal, Pushpa Devi, Smt. Phool Bai, Battu Lal, Jagdish, Dropati, Smt. Kemlesh, Smt. Geeta, Smt. Radha, Kanhaiya Lal and other witnesses. 6. In order to properly examine the controversy placed before me. it will be useful to consider the ingredients of Section 304-B which provides as under "304-B, Dowry death-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for. or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ''dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (2) Whenever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 7. or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called ''dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. (2) Whenever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 7. A look on Section 304-B goes to show that if a deceased woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relatives of her husband, for or in connection with any demand of dowry, such death shall be called dowry death. In this Section if any relative of the husband of deceased woman acted in cruel manner or harassed such woman soon before her death he would also be liable to be charged under Section 304-B. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned trial court to examine the facts of the case in the light of the ingredients incorporated in Section 304-3 of IPC. The petitioner could not have been charged for abetting the offence under Section 304-B. Either he may be charged under Section 304 part-B of IPC or he may be discharged. The learned trial court has to see as to on the basis of the statement of the prosecution witnesses whether a charge under Section 304-B is made out against the petitioner or not. It cannot be a charge with the help of Section 109 of IPC. I am of the considered view that by framing charge under Section 304-B read with section 109 of the IPC, the learned trial court has committed grave error and, therefore, the impugned order qua the petitioner deserves to be set- aside. 8. Resultantly, I allow this revision and set-aside the order dated September 24th, 1996 qua the accused petitioner Jayanti Lal. I remit the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City for passing the appropriate order in view of the observations made herein above and after hearing the parties. The record of the case be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindaun City on March 3rd, 1998.Revision allowed. *******