JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this revision petition preferred under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the petitioner herein seeks to assail the order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer in Sessions Case No.126/2015 whereby, the learned trial court directed framing of charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Facts in brief are that Shri Pradeep, son of the present petitioner was married to the deceased Smt. Nirmala @ Neha on 23.01.2007 and was working as a District Excise Officer in the Excise Department. Two sons were born from the wedlock. It is alleged that after some time of their marriage, Pradeep started demanding dowry from the deceased Smt. Nirmala and her parents. It was further alleged that Pradeep was having a love affair with another girl for the last about 2 years and owing thereto, he was harassing and humiliating the deceased and was threatening that if she did not procure a house and Rs.10,00,000/- from her father, she would be killed and he would remarry. On 19.04.2015, Smt. Nirmala @ Neha called her mother and expressed an apprehension that the petitioner and his brother Hitesh could kill her. On 19.04.2015 in the night, Pradeep and Hitesh accompanied with Neha and her son Rajat proceeded to Barmer by car. On the way, Pradeep and Hitesh assaulted Nirmala @ Neha and threw her out of the car as a result whereof, she suffered serious injuries and succumbed thereto. A written report to this effect was submitted by Bhimaram, father of the deceased with the District Superintendent of Police, Barmer on 22.04.2015 upon which, an FIR No.21/2015 was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 498A read with 201 IPC. 2. During the course of investigation, the police got conducted the postmortem of body of the deceased Nirmala @ Neha as per which, she was found to be having numerous injuries on her person. The investigation found accused Pradeep Balach responsible for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 498A IPC, Hitesh for the offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 120B IPC and the present petitioner being the mother-in-law of the deceased for the offence under Section 498A IPC and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the terms indicated above. The investigation found accused Pradeep Balach responsible for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 498A IPC, Hitesh for the offences under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 120B IPC and the present petitioner being the mother-in-law of the deceased for the offence under Section 498A IPC and a charge-sheet was filed against the accused in the terms indicated above. Before the trial court, it was contested on behalf of the petitioner Smt. Meena urging that there was no material on record of the case to show that she had ever harassed or humiliated the deceased Smt. Neha on account of bringing less dowry or that any such misbehaviour was meted out to her by the present petitioner which could be treated as cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC and thus a prayer was made to discharge her. The trial court, however, proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A IPC by order dated 17.08.2016 which is under challenge in the instant revision petition. 3. For coming to a conclusion regarding the petitioner's arraignment for the offence under Section 498A, the learned trial court principally relied upon the call details and recordings of conversion held between the petitioner and the main accused Hitesh which was collected by the I.O. during investigation. The trial court inferred from the said call details and recording and held that these pieces of evidence indicated towards the guilt of the petitioner for the above offence and accordingly charge was framed against her. 4. Shri Nishant Bora, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that even if the recording of the conversation held inter-se between the present petitioner and the main accused Pradeep Balach, husband of the deceased is accepted as such on its face value then also, no inference can be drawn that the petitioner ever harassed or humiliated the deceased at any point of time before her marriage. Referring to the statement of Smt. Parvati Devi-mother of the deceased, Hitesh Kumar-her brother and Bhimaram-her father recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Shri Bora contended that in all of these statements, the allegation of harassment meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry is against Pradeep. As per Shri Bora, these witnesses have conjectured that the petitioner and her husband were also responsible for the death of Smt. Nirmala. As per Shri Bora, these witnesses have conjectured that the petitioner and her husband were also responsible for the death of Smt. Nirmala. Referring to the statement of Bhimaram, Shri Bora pointed out that as per him, Pradeep had taken the deceased Smt. Nirmala to Gadra Road on 18.04.2015 who called her mother Parvati Devi and expressed an apprehension that she would be killed by Pradeep and Hitesh. In this statement, Shri Bhimaram did not make any allegation whatsoever that the petitioner was responsible for harassing or humiliating the deceased Smt. Nirmala on account of demand of dowry or even otherwise. He urged that all these witnesses being the closest relatives of the deceased have unanimously alleged that Pradeep was carrying on with another woman and wanted to get rid of his wife so that he could remarry and that he killed Smt. Nirmala to fulfill this design. He thus urged that the revision petition deserves to be accepted and the impugned order framing charge against the petitioner should be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Siddharth Karwasara, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2 complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. They contended that in the FIR as well as in the statements of Bhimaram-father of the deceased, Parvati Devi-her mother, Hitesh-her brother, there are specific allegations that Pradeep was having an extramarital affair with another woman and wanted to get rid of Nirmala so that he could remarry. They further drew the Court's attention to the recording of the conversation held between the petitioner and Pradeep soon before the incident and tried to persuade the court to accept that the tenor of the conversation establishes the petitioner's guilt for the offence under Section 498A IPC. They thus craved rejection of revision petition. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 7. The highest allegation narrated in the detailed typed FIR submitted by Bhimaram, father of the deceased, is that Pradeep Balach, husband of deceased was having love affair with another girl for the last about 2 years and owing this, he was harassing the deceased and demanded that she should procure a house and Rs.10,00,000/- from her father or else she would be killed and Pradeep would remarry. In the entire FIR, there is not even a whisper of any kind against anyone apart from Pradeep. Even in the statements of the star prosecution witnesses, Bhinyaram, Hitesh and Smt. Parvati Devi, primary allegations of harassment and humiliation meted out to the deceased for the past two years are against Pradeep Balach. An omnibus allegation was set out against two Devars Hitesh and Naresh, mother-in-law, father-in-law that they were also harassing the deceased for demand of dowry. As per these witnesses, Pradeep used to physically torture the deceased because of his extramarital affair. On 15.04.2015, Nirmala called her mother Smt. Parvati Devi and told her that Pradeep was forcing her to go to Gadra Road. Her mother-in-law, who was at Jodhpur, also presented her to go to Gadra Road and told Pradeep and Hitesh that they should finish the work for which they are going. On 16.04.2015, her husband and Hitesh forcibly boarded her into the car for going to Gadra Road and the petitioner talked to Pradeep and tried to make him understand on which Pradeep agreed that he would not repeat the mistake in future. On 17/18.04.2015, Nirmala again called her mother Parvati Devi and told that she was feeling uneasy and probably would be killed. The witness did not believe the deceased. However, in the night intervening 19/20.04.2015, Pradeep murdered Nirmala. On going through these statements, it is manifestly clear that there is no such allegation against the petitioner which can justify framing of charge against her for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Much water was sought to be drawn by the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Kadwasara, learned counsel representing the complainant from the mobile conversation held between the main accused Pradeep Balach and the present petitioner; the transcript whereof is available on record. In such conversation, Pradeep is heard hurling insinuations indicating that he would do away with the deceased. However, the petitioner is heard telling that people would treat him to be at fault and that it would be a stigma on him. 8. Considering the tenor of the conversation, this Court is duly satisfied that the petitioner was trying hard to convince her son Pradeep not to go ahead with his evil design of killing the deceased. However, the petitioner is heard telling that people would treat him to be at fault and that it would be a stigma on him. 8. Considering the tenor of the conversation, this Court is duly satisfied that the petitioner was trying hard to convince her son Pradeep not to go ahead with his evil design of killing the deceased. In view of what has been narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no material worth the name on the record of the case so as to justify framing of charge under Section 498A IPC against the present petitioner. Though, it is true that at the stage of framing of charge, an exhaustive re-appreciation of evidence is not warranted but nevertheless, there has to be basic material which can convince the Court to proceed against the accused for the particular charge and then only, an order can be passed in terms of Section 228 Cr.P.C. As discussed above, there is absolute lack of material which can satisfy the court regarding involvement of the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 498A IPC. 9. As a consequence of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the trial court committed a grave error in framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A IPC and the impugned order cannot be sustained to the petitioner's extent. 10. Resultantly, the revision petition is accepted. The impugned order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer in Sessions Case No.126/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent charge was directed to be framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A IPC. She is discharged from the said offence. The trial court shall proceed against the other accused persons as per law.