ORDER 1. This criminal revision has been filed under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T.No.297/2014, whereby the charges under sections 498A, 498A/34, 304B and 306 of IPC have been framed against the petitioners. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Pramodni Sharma has lodged the report that marriage of her daughter was solemnized on 21.4.2007 with Deepak Chaturvedi. During marriage, sufficient dowry was given but on 22.4.2007 at the time of Vidai, Deepak, Ramprakash and Rohit started demanding the additional amount of Rs.One lac. After marriage, husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Devar of her daughter demanded Rs.One lac and due to non-fulfilment, they started harassing her daughter. Mother-in-law used to say that she would kill her daughter and perform second marriage of her son. On 30.4.2007, Deepak came to her village and told that they have not given sufficient dowry in the marriage. Deepak also abused her daughter and threatened her that unless his demand is fulfilled, he would not take back her and perform second marriage. She has given Rs.10,000/- to Deepak and assured that balance amount shall be paid as soon as it is arranged. It is further alleged that on 16.10.2011 son-in-law brought her daughter and asked her to demand Rs.One lac then her daughter started demanding Rs.One lac, when she expressed her inability, her husband threatened her. On 18.10.2011 she has informed that her daughter has died. On the basis of aforesaid report, Crime No.38/2012 under section 498A, 304B, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been registered. 3. After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Learned trial Court framed the charges as mentioned in para-1 of this order. Being aggrieved, this revision has been filed. 4. It is submitted that impugned order is illegal. There is no prima facie material to frame the charges against the petitioners. In the post-mortem report, cause of death has been found anaemia and fever. It is further submitted that Sub-Divisional Officer has also conducted the enquiry and found that the deceased died unnatural death. Learned trial Court has not considered the aforesaid material in its proper perspective and erred in framing the charges. Hence, prayed that impugned order be set aside. 5. It is further submitted that Sub-Divisional Officer has also conducted the enquiry and found that the deceased died unnatural death. Learned trial Court has not considered the aforesaid material in its proper perspective and erred in framing the charges. Hence, prayed that impugned order be set aside. 5. Learned Government Advocate as well as counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and submitted that there is prima facie material available on record to frame the charges. 6. I have perused the case diary and charge sheet. 7. In the case diary statement, Pramodni mother of the deceased has categorically stated that demand of dowry was made by the husband and in-laws of her daughter. It is further stated that due to non-fulfilment, husband of her daughter and in-laws used to harass her. Subham Sirothiya who is brother of the deceased also stated that in-laws of her sister used to harass her. Her brother-in-law used to harass her sister. Jaipal Singh Gurjar and Bali Gurjar in their case diary statement have stated that on 18.10.2011 when deceased came back she was alright and after two days she died. 8. As per post-mortem report, no injury has been found. Due to severe anaemia, the deceased has died. Visra was sent for chemical examination. Visra report is not available on record. However, from the copy of the report submitted by Sub-Divisional Officer, it is mentioned that no chemical poison has been found. 9. At the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of sections 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed. 10. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed. 10. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao [2012 AIR SCW 5139], the apex Court considered the scope of sections 227 and 228 of CrPC and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed. 11. As noticed above, mother of the deceased and her brother have categorically stated that the deceased was harassed by the petitioners in connection with demand of dowry, the deceased died within 4½ years of her marriage in her matrimonial home and two witnesses said that two days prior to her death the deceased was alright, in such circumstances, I find that there is sufficient material against the petitioners to frame the charges under sections 498A, 498A/34, 304B and 306 of IPC. Learned trial Court has rightly framed the charges against the petitioners. 12. In view of the above, this revision petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Brajesh Sharma for petitioners; Arun Barua, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State; M. L. Yadav for respondent No.2.