BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed challenging the order on charge as well as the charge framed on 22. 4. 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions judge against the present petitioner.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially there were four accused in this case. The four accused were Mahesh Kumar (husband), late Banarasi Das (father-in-law), Smt Kusum (married sister-in-law)and Urmila Devi (the present petitioner) (mother-in-law ). He submitted that insofar as the other three accused are concerned, they faced trial and were acquitted by a judgment and order dated 24. 9. 2003. The present petitioner was absconding and her trial could not commence because of that. However, after the judgment and order of acquittal of the co-accused, the petitioner has joined the proceedings and she has been charged by virtue of the order on charge and formal charge for having committed offences, firstly under Section 498a and secondly under Section 304b/34 IPC.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the present petitioner to a full fledged trial because on the same set