At the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to apply the same standard of test and judgment as it does before recording a finding of guilt or otherwise. The court's duty at this stage is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to presume that the accused committed the offense for which they have been charged.

( 1 ) BOTH these reusion petitions arise out of the order of framing of charge by the Metropolitan Magistrate in a case being tried by him under Sections 498-A and 4061pc. Some of the facts which are relevant for the purposes of deciding this petition are; That Shri Shiv Kumar. who is the brother of the petitioners in Cri. R. 111/95 and nephew of the petitioner in Crl. R. 156/95, was married to the complainant, Smt. Usha according to Hindu rites, in Delhi on 1st July, 1990; Both, the complainant as well as Shri Shiv Kumar. were employed as trained graduate teachers with the Directorate of Education, Govt. of Delhi. Due to some matrimonial discord, the complainant left the matrimonial home and on March 5, 1992 lodged a report with Crime Against Women Cell at Seelampur alleging that Shri Shiv Kumar and his family members including the petitioners had been harassing her by demanding dowry and had also not returned her istridhan which was cntrusted to them after marriage. On the basis of the complaint and the subsequent report dated 20th July, 1992. case FIR No. 430/92 was registered against Shri Shiv Kumar and other relatives under Section 498a/406/34 Indian Penal Code. After the challan had been filed by the police, the trial Court vide impugned order dated 15th February, 1995 framed charges against the petitioners only under Section 498-A 1pc, no charge against them was framed under Section 4061pc.

( 2 ) THE petitioners being aggrieved of the said order of framing charge under Section 498a against diem have filed the present petition for quashing the same. .

( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that whilc petitioner No. l in Crl. R. 111/95 was marriead in 1986 much earlier than the marriage other brother Shiv Kumar with the complainant and was living outside Delhi at the relcvant time; petitioner No. 2 was married in June 1991. Both the said petitioners were living separately from the complainant and her husband at the relevant time and the contention is that there areno allegations against either of the petitioners regarding demand of dowry. With a view to appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, it will be useful to note the contents of the complaints as well as investigation which has been carried out by the police.

( 4 ) THE complainant in her complaint had stated that her husband Shiv Kumar, father-in-law Parmanand Sharma. mother-in-law Vidya, Devar Jitender Kaushik. Sisters-in-law Subhadra and Pushpa and uncle of her husband Harlai Shastri used to insist upon the complainant to bring more dowry from her father and they were also demanding Rs. 50. 000. 00 in cash and all these persons turned her from the house and did not return her istridhan. Though in the original complaint made on March 5. 1992 the name of one of the : Sisters-in-law Kusum was not mentioned, however, in her statement before the police recorded on November 13. 1992 she also named Kusum being one of the persons besides others to have demanded dowry from her. In her statement recorded before the. Crime Against Women Cell, it was stated by the complainant that in the month of August, her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law (Kusum and Pushpa) had beaten her and from 21 st August. 1990 to 25th April. 1991 she had stayed with her father. It is further stated by her that after the marriage other sister-in-law, her brother in law (Mahesh) and her father-in-law caught hold of her hand and her mother-in-law Vidya, elder sister-in-law Subhadra (who was living in Punjab with her husband and whose two children were living with the in-laws of the complainant) and younger sister-in-law Pushpa beat her mercilessly. Allegations have also been made against sisters-in-law Subhadra. Kusum and Pushpa in her complaint dated 20th July, 1992. It has been stated that they had tortured her mentally and physically. In her statement recorded on 23rd August. 1992 the complainant has said that she had been beaten by her sisters-in-law. In her supplementary stateme