1. This is a revision petition filed by Chander Kanta Lamba, Suman Bhardwaj, Manju Mal and Neeru Behl-sisters in law of the complainant Ms.Namrata Behl against the order dated 04.03.2008 by virtue of which the learned MM, Patiala House Courts directed the framing of charge under Section 498A/34 IPC against the petitioners.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant got married with one Sh.Naresh Behl according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 17.1.2000 in Delhi. It seems that the marriage did not last long and resulted in breakdown, as a consequence of which the complainant, Ms.Namrata Behl lodged a complaint on 11.9.2001 with the Crime Against Women Cell to take action against her husband Naresh Behl and his other family members for allegedly making illegal demand of dowry and treating her with cruelty. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR No.111/2002 was registered at P.S. Malviya Nagar by the police against Naresh Behl (husband), Mohini (mother in law)(since deceased), Chander Kanta Lamba, Suman Bhardwaj, Manju Mal, Poonam Behl and Neeru Behl-sisters in law and one Rajiv Behl, brother in law of the complainant.

3. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. While as all the accused persons were sent for trial the name of Poonam Trehan was shown in column No.2 in the charge sheet. She was residing out of India. Column No.2 deals with the persons who are not sent for trial for lack of evidence.

4. It has been stated in the impugned order that so far as the mother in law of the deceased is concerned, she has expired during the pendency of the proceedings and accordingly, the proceedings vide order dated 20.6.2006 against her are deemed to have abated.

5. In the complaint, the main allegation made by the complainant against the accused persons and their brother Naresh Behl was that they had demanded a sum of Rs.5 lacs and her articles were retained which are alleged to have been returned to her during the pendency of the investigation. So far as the present petitioners are concerned, the allegations made in the complaint are that Chander Kanta Lamba, Suman Bhardwaj and Manju Mal use to plant false stories about the complainant and Manju Mal and Neeru Behl had also deliberately and intentionally removed the money from the purse of their mother, Mohini and accused the complainant of stealing her money. There are general allegations that all the sisters in law namely the present petitioners had subjected her to demand of dowry and consequent cruelty on the basis of which they deserves to be dealt with in accordance with law.

6. The learned Magistrate after hearing arguments discharged Rajesh brother in law of the complainant while as it directed framing of charge against the present petitioners for an offence u/s 498A IPC only.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners had cited six judgments, which are detailed below:

“ i) Neera Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. 138 (2007) DLT 152 ii) Anu Gill Vs. State & Anr. 2001 (2) JCC (Delhi) 86 iii) Ramandeep Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 394 iv) Mukesh Rani Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (1) RCR (Criminal) 163 v) Ujjal Maitra & Ors. Vs. Kanchan Maitra 1998 Cri. L.J. 1002 vi) Ramesh & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2005 SC 1989”

8. But the learned MM has distinguished cases of Anu Gill, Ramandeep Kaur, Ramesh and Ujjal Mitra and observed that the facts of these cases are totally different and there are allegations against the present petitioners which constitutes subjecting the complainant to cruelty, if not physical at least the mental which falls within the ambit of Section 498A IPC and therefore, directed the framing of charge u/s 498A of the IPC.

9. As regards, the offence u/s 406 of IPC all the accused persons were discharged from the aforesaid offence.

10. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order have preferred the present revision petition.

11. I have heard the