JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 29.8.2003 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sriganganagar has confirmed the order dated 8.5.2002 passed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar framing charges against the petitioners for offence u/s. 498-A IPC. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the complainant- Anuradha married with Sunil Kumar on 12.11.1995. It is alleged that she was being tortured by her husband and in-laws. Police registered a case for offence u/ss. 406 & 498-A IPC. After investigation, police filed challan against the husband Sunil Kumar, father-in-law Mohan Lal and mother-in-law Smt. Satyarani for offence u/ss. 406 & 498-A IPC. Police forwarded the Final Report as against the petitioners herein Anil Kumar, brother-in-law and Smt. Lalita, sister-in-law of the complainant. Charges were framed against Sunil Kumar, Mohan Lal and Satyarani for offence u/ss. 406 & 498-A IPC. During the trial, statements of PW-1 Lakhmi Chand, PW-2 Anuradha, PW-3 Hukam Chand and PW-4 Ghanshyam Das were recorded. Complainant filed an application u/s. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to add the petitioners herein as accused in the case. Learned Magistrate by order dated 22.11.2000 allowed the said application and added them as accused to be tried for offence u/ss. 406 & 498-A IPC. Petitioners challenged the said order before this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 680/2000. Said petition was dismissed. The trial Court again heard the arguments for framing of charges against the petitioners for offence u/ss. 406 & 498-A IPC. Learned Magistrate discharged the petitioners of offence u/s. 406 IPC but framed the charges for offence u/s. 498-A IPC. Petitioners carried the matter in revision successfully. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that there is no evidence worth. the name to suggest that petitioners who are sister-in-law and her husband, in any way caused harm to the complainant with a view to coercing her to make unlawful demand for property and valuable security. The second petitioner-Smt. Lalita who is the sister of the complainant's husband lives in a different town namely Faridabad. In the entire statement of the complainant-Anuradha, she has only stated that Smt. Lalita and her husband treated her with cruelty. The second petitioner-Smt. Lalita who is the sister of the complainant's husband lives in a different town namely Faridabad. In the entire statement of the complainant-Anuradha, she has only stated that Smt. Lalita and her husband treated her with cruelty. There is no allegation that she was being harmed in order to make unlawful demand for property or valuable security. Thus, even if entire case of the complainant is accepted on its face value, it does not satisfies the essential ingredients of offence u/s. 498-A IPC. Learned Judge has rejected the contention simply on the ground the order adding the petitioners as accused u/s. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been upheld by this Court. In fact, these are two different stages. At the stage of charge, the accused has a right to address the Court and satisfy if there exists sufficient material to frame the charges against him. Learned revisional Court failed to address itself to the crucial point involved in the case. Trial Court has committed manifest error in framing the charges against the petitioners for offence u/s. 498-A IPC. 4. Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed. The orders of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sriganganagar dated 29.8.2003 and the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar dated 8.5.2002 are set aside. Petitioners are discharged for offence u/8. 498-A IPC.Petition allowed. *******