Judgment : 1. Petitioners are accused Nos. 4 and 5 in crime No. 922/2010 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B and Section 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Under the impugned order dated 19.06.2013 in S.C. No. 479/2011 the Sessions Judge, Bangalore city framed charges as under: "That you the Accused No. 1 and 4 are the children of the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and you the Accused No. 5 is the husband of the Accused No. 4; first of the Accused was married to the deceased Y. Prathima D/o. CW.1 on 18.10.2007, Mysore as per Hindu Customs; subsequent to the marriage Prathima joined you Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the marital home at House No. 1448, 17th B Main Road, II Phase, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore, and during the stay of the deceased at your house, you the accused persons with common intention inflicted cruelty to the deceased by demanding Rs.10 lakhs dowry from her parents, verbally abused her, you the Accused No.1 used to assault the deceased. Because of the above physical and mental cruelty inflicted on her by you accused persons, Prathima committed suicide by hanging herself in the above said marital home on 14.11.2010 at 8.30 AM and thereby you the accused persons have committed an offence punishable u/s. 498(A) r/w. Sec. 34 of I.P.C. and within my cognizance. Secondly, you the Accused persons on the above said date and time and place, caused dowry death of Prathima with common intention, on subjecting her to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs from her parents and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s. 304(B) r/w. Sec. 34 of I.P.C. and within my cognizance. Alternatively, in the above said place, date and time Prathima committed suicide by hanging and you the accused persons abated the commission of the suicide by subjecting her mental and physical cruelty by demanding her to bring dowry of Rs.10 Lakhs from her parents and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 306 r/w. Sec. 34 of I.P.C. and within my cognizance. Thirdly, you the Accused persons during the marriage of the deceased Prathima with the first of you accused on 18.10.2007, with common intention demanded and received the dowry of Rs.2 lakhs cash, one gold chain, one god bracelet, two gold rings, one Citizen Wrist Watch and Rs.25,000/-cash towards clothes and shoe for you the Accused No.1 and for one pair gold bangles, one gold necklace, one pair ole jumaki, one pair plain hangings, one diamond ring, one pair pearl ole jumaki, pearl chain and pearl ring for the deceased Y. Prathima; and thereby you the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/s. 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC. Fourthly, you the Accused persons after the marriage further forced the deceased Y. Prathima to bring Rs.10 lakhs as further dowry from her father for your business by giving her ill-treatment; and when your cruelty to deceased Y. Prathima was unbearable, CW.1-Yalakaiah registered a site situated in Mysore, measuring 40 X 60 feet in the name of you A.1; and inspite of this also you accused continued to demand Rs.10 lakhs as further dowry and forced the deceased Y. Prathima to bring the said amount from her father CW.1-Yalakaiah; and thereby you the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/s. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Sec. 34 of IPC." Petitioners being aggrieved by the framing of charges against them are before this Court. 2. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers. 3. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 are brother and sister and they are the children of accused Nos. 2 and 3. Accused No. 5 is the husband of accused No. 4. Accused No. 1 married the deceased Pratima on 18.10.2007. After marriage accused Nos. 1 to 3 and the deceased were residing at house No. 1448, 17th `B' Main Road, II Phase, J.P. 6 Nagar, Bangalore. Wife of accused No. 1 -Prathima committed suicide on 14.11.2010 in the matrimonial house at Bangalore. Suspecting that the death of Prathima a complaint was lodged with the respondent police alleging that on account of dowry harassment the deceased died and the same came to be registered in crime No. 922/2010, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against all the accused Nos. 1 to 5. Suspecting that the death of Prathima a complaint was lodged with the respondent police alleging that on account of dowry harassment the deceased died and the same came to be registered in crime No. 922/2010, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against all the accused Nos. 1 to 5. After hearing learned advocates for accused the Sessions Judge passed the above order framing charges against all the accused. Being aggrieved by the above order, petitioners who are accused Nos. 4 and 5 are before this Court. 4. The material on record discloses that accused Nos. 4 and 5 married about 17 years back and they are residing separately at premises No. 1, 5th Cross, Vinayaka Layout, Bhoopsandra, Bangalore - 560 090. On the date of incident accused Nos. 4 and 5 were not in the matrimonial house of the deceased. Admittedly accused Nos. 1 to 3 and deceased were residing under one roof as on the date of incident on 14.11.2010 and immediately prior to that. Except a general allegation that these petitioners also joined other accused in demanding dowry from the deceased, no overt acts are alleged against these petitioners. Three are no incriminating material on record implicating these petitioners in crime. Even the statements of C.W.2 to C.W.6 do not specify what is the role of these petitioners in committing the offence. Except a general allegation roping these petitioners into crime no specific acts are alleged against them. 5. In identical circumstances the Supreme Court in the case of Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2000 Cr.L.J. 2993 (SC) held as under: "For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In case where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused." In the case of Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2010 Crl.L.J. 4303 held as under: "34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. 35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. we direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon'ble Minister for Law and Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society." 6. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, having regard to the general allegations made against these petitioners and in the absence of any incriminate material there is no justification to frame charges against these accused. 7. For the reasons stated above, the following; ORDER i. Petition is hereby allowed. ii. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, having regard to the general allegations made against these petitioners and in the absence of any incriminate material there is no justification to frame charges against these accused. 7. For the reasons stated above, the following; ORDER i. Petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 19.06.2013 in S.C. No. 479/2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bangalore city framing charges insofar as these petitioners are concerned is hereby set aside. iii. The charge framed insofar as the other accused are concerned remains intact and undisturbed. iv. Petitioners are hereby discharged.