JUDGMENT This revision by the complainant is directed against the order dated 12.7.93 passed by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, dismissing application made by the prosecution for framing additional charge u/s. 498A IPC against the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Applicant Indermal is the father of late Smt. Indubala who was married to respondent No. 5 Surendra, Respondent No. 2 Ranjit Singh and No. 4 Sampatbai are the parents of respondent No. 5 Surendra. Respondent No. 3 Virendra is the brother of Surendra while No. 6 Indubala is wife of Virendra. Deceased Indubala died of bum injuries on 7.1.92. On a report lodged by the applicant Indermal, Police Mandsaur registered a crime u/Ss. 306 & 498A IPC and after usual investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. The trial Court below, however, framed charge only u/s. 306 IPC against the accused-respondents and declined prayer of the prosecution for framing additional charge u/s. 498A IPC by its order impugned, thus giving rise to this revision. I have heard Shri K.P. Pandey, learned counsel for applicant, Shri G. Desai, learned GA for respondent No. 1 -- State and Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for accused-respondents No. 2 to 6. Section 498A which provides for punishment for committing cruelty by husband or relatives of husband of a woman reads as follows -- 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty -- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation -- For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means -- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view of coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. From the clause (a) of Sec. 498A it will appear that the basic difference that lies between Sec. 498A & 306 is that u/s. 498A cruelty is committed by the husband or his relatives is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. Commission of suicide is not necessary for substituting the offence u/s. 498A, However, whether suicide is committed as a direct consequence of such cruelty then Sec. 306 IPC is attracted. So, in a case where cruelty by husband or his relatives is the direct cause for commission of suicide by the woman then ingredients of offence u/s. 498A are also made out in addition to that of Sec. 306 IPC. It is pertinent to note here that the learned A.S.J. in the charge u/s. 306 IPC framed by him against the accused persons, has clearly stated that the accused have abated commission of suicide by subjecting the deceased to cruelty in order to compel her to meet their demand for dowry. In a way the learned ASJ himself was satisfied as to the existence of all the ingredients which constitute offence u/s. 498A IPC. The prayer of the prosecution for framing charge under that Section was, therefore, wholly justified and the Court below clearly erred in rejecting that prayer. It is true that initially when the charge u/s. 306 IPC was framed by the Court, prosecution did not make any grievance about non-framing of charge u/s. 498A IPC. No revision or other proceeding against the order of framing of charge was filed before this Court. But this did not and could not prevent the prosecution from making application for addition of charge and the Court below had jurisdiction u/s. 216 CrPC to frame an additional charge if justified by the evidence on record. In the instant case, as already pointed out, the evidentiary material placed on record did prima facie make out a case u/s. 498A in addition to Sec. 306 IPC. In the result I allow this revision, set aside the order impugned and direct that the Court shall frame additional charge u/s. 498 IPC against the accused respondents No. 2 to 6. The Court shall then proceed to try the accused persons keeping in view the directions contained u/s. 217 CrPC. Record of the trial Court along with a copy of this order be transmitted to that Court immediately.