JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner-Sharif Khan challenging the order of framing charge against him for offence u/Ss. 498A and 406 IPC by the learned trial court vide order dated 22/8/2008. Petitioner has also assailed the order of the revisional court dated 17/8/2010 by which, revision petition submitted against the aforesaid order of framing charge was dismissed. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is in retaliation of a criminal case which he registered against the complainant party for subjecting him to beating at the residence of petitioner. When that case was registered, complainant in order to take revenge from him registered this false criminal case against him. Witnesses namely; Sitaram, Anwar Khan, Sakuran and Haneef Khan, whose statements have been recorded by the trial court are related to complainant and they are not independent witnesses. Their statements cannot be relied on. There are other witnesses namely; Salim, Shaukat, Sultan and Diwan, who have clearly stated that there was no demand of dowry and the dispute is between the husband and wife owing to which, a false criminal case has been registered. Even then, learned trial court erred in law in framing charge against the petitioner. Learned revisional court also committed the same illegality. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submitted that four independent witnesses have stated against the accused petitioner by supporting the prosecution case. Learned trial court as well as the learned revisional court have considered the statement of Salim, who stated in favour of the accused petitioner but he is also his uncle. Other witness namely; Shaukat is his family friend and Sultan and Diwan are his neighbours. Learned trial court therefore was justified in framing the charge against the petitioner and the revisional court in upholding the same because veracity of their statements can be tested only when their statements are recorded and they are allowed to be subjected to cross-examination. 4. Other witness namely; Shaukat is his family friend and Sultan and Diwan are his neighbours. Learned trial court therefore was justified in framing the charge against the petitioner and the revisional court in upholding the same because veracity of their statements can be tested only when their statements are recorded and they are allowed to be subjected to cross-examination. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that in framing of charge, learned trial court has only to give a finding that there should be some evidence making out prima-facie charge against the petitioner and if this requirement was satisfied, the trial court was not expected to make detailed and thorough discussion of the evidence or credibility or reliability of witnesses. Learned courts below, in my considered view, did not commit any error of law. The impugned orders do not suffer from any infirmity.This petition therefore dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******