Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been filed by Narinder Kumar and four others to challenge the framing of charge against them under Section 304-B I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide order dated May 10, 2000. 2. The background of the case is that Titiksha, sister of Prafful Kumar Sharma was married to Narinder Kumar on February 22, 1992 at village Sarai Julena, Delhi. Narinder Kumar is the son of Uttam Parkash and Tara Devi. Narinder Kumars brother is Ravinder and Archna is Narinder Kumars sister-in-law. The five petitioners are thus closely related. 3. The connected Criminal Revision 1014 of 2000 has been filed by Prafful Kumar Sharma against Narinder Kumar and four others to challenge the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated May 10, 2000 whereunder the learned trial Judge held that no offence under Section 304-B or 306 I.P.C. was made out against the accused in the police case. Both cases shall be decided by this common judgment. 4. The accused were sent up for trial on the basis of FIR 49 dated January 14, 1998 under Section 498-A/304-B IPC and summoned in a criminal complaint filed by Prafful Kumar Sharma under Section 498-A/304-B I.P.C. 5. On January 13, 1998 Titiksha was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi with burns. Titiksha died on January 20, 1998 and post-mortem was conducted on the following day. However, when her brother Prafful Kumar Sharma came to know of the incident, he along with his mother Prem Wati reached the hospital and found that Titiksha was lying unconscious. Thereafter, Prem Wati alongwith Prafful Kumar Sharma went to Police Station, NIT, Faridabad and reported the matter on January 14, 1998 at 8.40 P.M. and the case was registered. 6. On January 16, 1998 S.D.M. Delhi recorded the dying declaration of Titiksha wherein the deceased stated that her husband used to work in his brother Ravinders press and had taken a loan of Rs. 23,000/- for the press which he was unable to return. On this account there would be frequent quarrel at home. She was also beaten up her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law Ravinder and Yoginder and sister-in-law Archna. On January 13, 1998 the bank officials had come to effect the recovery of loan. 23,000/- for the press which he was unable to return. On this account there would be frequent quarrel at home. She was also beaten up her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law Ravinder and Yoginder and sister-in-law Archna. On January 13, 1998 the bank officials had come to effect the recovery of loan. Her husband told them that he could not repay the amount, whereupon the bank officials asserted that the loan must be returned by January 15, 1998. Her husband had gone to his father and requested them that loan be repaid to the bank but he was treated very shabbily. Her husband returned to her and began to weep. At 8 P.M. she picked up a bottle of finit and sprinkled it upon herself and set herself on fire. Her husband extinguished the fire and got her admitted in the hospital. Before concluding Titiksha categorically stated that she set herself on fire and her parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law had compelled her to commit suicide. 7. On May 10, 2000 the learned trial Judge considered both the police case and the complaint case and held that the dying declaration of Titiksha did not disclose commission of any offence under Section 304-B or 306 I.P.C. Since no charge could be framed against the accused, the accused were discharged in the police case. 8. The version in the complaint was a different one. Therein Titikshnas brother Prafful Kumar Sharma had stated that her marriage to Narinder Kumar had been performed by his mother in a nice manner. After marriage Titiksha had stated living with her husband and other accused in a joint family but soon found that they were greedy persons and were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her. Whenever Titiksha visited her paternal family at Delhi or uncles house at Tigaon, she would complain that the accused used to maltreat, torture and humiliate her for bringing less dowry. Titiksha gave birth to two sons but the lust of the accused for dowry was never satisfied. After four years of the marriage, Titiksha shifted to the first floor of the house but the interference of the accused continued. The complainant visited the accused on January 11, 1998 with presents but the accused raised a demand that a loan had been taken from the bank which they were unable to pay and asked for Rs. 50,000/- as Titksha had brought less dowry. The complainant visited the accused on January 11, 1998 with presents but the accused raised a demand that a loan had been taken from the bank which they were unable to pay and asked for Rs. 50,000/- as Titksha had brought less dowry. The complainant returned home with a heavy heart and disclosed every thing to his mother. Titiksha immolated herself on January 13 and was admitted to the hospital. According to the complainant the dying declaration had been very cleverly manipulated. 9. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that there was prima facie evidence that accused had committed an offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. and directed that charges be framed against them. 10. It is quite clear from the above that the learned trial Judge had on the same day given two contradictory opinions but it must be remembered that he had very carefully separated the two cases and had not relied upon the evidence in one case for the purposes of considering the charge in the other case. Both cases had been isolated from each other and resulted in contradictory opinions in respect of charge to be framed. In the police case dying declaration recorded by the S.D.M. Delhi on January 16, 1998 was taken as the basis of the prosecution case and resulted in the discharge of the accused. In the complaint case the criminal complaint filed by Prafful Kumar Sharma was taken as the basis of the prosecution case and charges were framed. The manner in which the learned trial Judge had decided the matter cannot be faulted. 11. In view of the above, I find no merit in either of the petitions and both are dismissed. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on September 26, 2005 for further proceedings.