( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 30. 03. 2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Delhi for framing charges against the petitioner under Sections 498a and 306 I PC being prima facie of the view that from the statement of deceased Smt. Bhagwati Kholia made before her death, the appellant should be tried for the said offences.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that Bhagwati Kholia was brought to the hospital with burn injuries on 20. 8. 2000. She gave her statement to the Police wherein she stated that she was married to the petitioner 12 years back. Her husband/petitioner used to suspect her character and used to quarrel with her every day. On the day of incident at about 6 a. m. when she came down stairs with her children, the petitioner started abusing her. Her brother Ashok who also resides in the same area was called and after some time her brother Ashok went out of the house and the petitioner also want out. The petitioner came back after some time and abused her saying randi, Tu Mar Kyo Nahi Jati. Thereafter she locked herself and bolted the room and set herself on fire after pouring kerosene oil. On this statement of Bhagwati Kholia, a case under Section 498a, IPC was registered vide fir No. 370/2000. Bhagwati kholia died in the hospital on 21. 8. 2000 so Section 306 IPC was also added to the FIR. On completion of the investigations challan under Sections 498a/306 IPC was filed against the petitioner. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, arguments on charge were heard and vide impugned order dated 30. 3. 2002, learned ASJ held that prima facie a case under sections 498a and 306 IPC is made out against the petitioner accused. He was charged accordingly Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

( 3 ) THE question as to what consideration should weigh with the Court at the time of considering the question of framing of charge under Section 227, Cr. P C has repeatedly engaged the attention of Hon ble Supreme Court on different occasions.

RECENTLY in the case of Smt. Om Wati and Anr. v. State, through Delhi Admn. and Ors. , 2001 (2) Crimes 59 (SC ). the Apex Court while referring to its earlier decision on the point in the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. v. State of West Bengal, 2000 (1) SCC 722; Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and Anr. , 1989 (1) SCC 715 and State of Bihar v. Ramesh singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018, Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Ors. , AIR 1989 SC 52 and Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, 1996 (9) SCC 766, held that at this stage the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at this stage of framing charges. Even a strong suspicion on the basis of the material before it can lead the Court to form a presumptive opinion regarding existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in that case, the court will be justified in framing charge against the accused. The Apex Court further cautioned in High Court of their statutory obligation to avoid interference at the initial stage of framing of charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to some decisions in the case of State v. Madan Lal Khurana and Ors. , II (2000) CCR 315, Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 Cri. LJ. 4724 (SC), Hira Lal Jain v. State, 2001 Cri. LJ. 1212 , Bommidi Rajamallu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Out of these cases, the case of Ramesh Kumar and Bommidi Rajamallu (supra)2001 Cri. LJ. 1319. were decided after full trial and not at the stage of charge. Obviously the consideration which will weigh with the Court at the stage of final decision of case will not be the same as those at the stage of ch