JUDGMENT 1. - The misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 23.6.2009 whereby the revisional Court has upheld the order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby charges have been framed against the present petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. 2. The short facts of the case are Smt. Priyanka respondent No. 2 has lodged F.I.R. No. 23/2007 against husband and other relatives of the husband stating therein that the petitioners and others are harassing and ill-treating her in connection with demand of dowry and when she was pregnant in March, 2003, she was forced to abort the child after getting the sonography done, After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioners and others. Hence this misc. petition. 3. The main contention of the present petitioners is that the petitioners are living separately from the complainant and there is no evidence regarding demand of dowry or misappropriation of any stridhan. There is no specific evidence against the present petitioners that they, in any way, had treated the complainant with cruelty for demand of dowry and hence the present petitioners should be discharged from the alleged offences. 4. The learned PP has submitted that the complainant and other witness have specifically stated against the present petitioners that they had harassed the complainant in connection with demand of dowry. 5. Looking at the material available on record, Smt. Priyanka has specifically stated against the present petitioner No. 2 Kanchan Rani, who is sister-in-law of the complainant, that at the time of marriage, petitioner No. 2 has ill-treated the complainant and specifically stated that the money which has been given by the parents of the complainant is less and consistently there are allegation that the sister-in-law was harassing and ill-treating the complainant and charges have been rightly framed against petitioner No. 2 for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments reported in the cases of Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2008) SCC (Cri.) 507 ; Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 3 SCC (Cri.) 473 and Neelu Chopra & Any. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments reported in the cases of Onkar Nath Mishra & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2008) SCC (Cri.) 507 ; Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 3 SCC (Cri.) 473 and Neelu Chopra & Any. v. Bharti, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2950 where it has been specifically said that at the state of framing of charge, the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence meticulously and it is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record and hence there was ample evidence against petitioner No. 2 to frame charge under Section 498-A I.P.C. 7. As regards the allegations against Pawan Kumar, petitioner No. 1 the allegations are omnibus. No specific allegation has been alleged against petitioner No. 1 for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and at the same time, there is no specific statement regarding entrustment of any property or stridhan to the present petitioners and there is no allegation that petitioners have, in any way, committed breach of trust or has denied to return back the articles given to them. Hence, charge for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. in unwarranted against petitioner. 8. In view of the above this revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioner No. 1 is discharged from charges for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and petitioner No. 2 is discharged from the charge for the offence under Section 406, I.P.C.Petition partly allowed. *******