JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. B.R. Arora for the petitioners, Mr. U.C.S. Singhvi, Public Prosecutor and Mr. M.L. Garg for the complainant. 2. Jeet Singh had lodged a First Information Report on December 5, 1985 that his daughter Balvender Kaur was married to Dilhagh Singh three years before the said date. It was mentioned that at about 8 or 9 p.m. of the nigat intervening 4th and 5th December, 1985, Pesticide spray was administered to Balvendra Kaur. Brother of Dilbaghsingh was sent to call Jeet Singh from his village. On reaching there, Jeet Singh came to know that Balvender Kaur has been administered pesticide spray and she had expired. After investigation the ' police filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences under section 306 and 498 A I.P.C. The post-mortem report mentions that the mode of the death was asphyxia due to suspected poisoning. The final opinion could be given after chemical examination and after the report of the vesceras was received. 3. In the First Information Report, Jeet Singh did not mention that harassment was made to Balvender Kaur with a view to meet the demand of additional dowry or that she had been treated with cruelty by either of the accused petitioners. However, in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. on 5/12/85 and 6.12.85, Jeet Singh stated that his daughter was being harassed for I bringing more money from her fathers house. Due to this Jeet Singh made a fixed deposit of Rs. 3500/- in bank in the name of his daughter. He had sent his son to bring the daughter but she was not sent. In the statement recorded on 6.12.85 Jeet Singh has stated that when Dilbaghsingh came to attend a marriage of his sisters son, he had told that the deceased was not able to deliver any child and, therefore, he may be married with another daughter. 4. On going through the entire statements of the witnesses, whose statements were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. there is nothing to show that Baldev Kaur alias Gurdev Kaur, mother of Dilbagh Singh, in any way harassed Jeet Singhs daughter or behaved with her with cruelty. Jeet Singh has also not I said anything regarding Baldev Kaur. 4. On going through the entire statements of the witnesses, whose statements were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. there is nothing to show that Baldev Kaur alias Gurdev Kaur, mother of Dilbagh Singh, in any way harassed Jeet Singhs daughter or behaved with her with cruelty. Jeet Singh has also not I said anything regarding Baldev Kaur. Whatever he has said is relating to Dilbagh Singh that he wanted to marry another girl because Jeet Singhs daughter was not able to deliver any child 5. In my view, there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against Baldev Kaur @ Gurdev Kaur petitioner No. 2. The charge framed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar against petitioner No. 2 is hereby quashed 6. So far as Dilbagh Singh is concerned there is some material on record to proceed with the case against him. 7. I, therefore partly allow this revision petition and quash the charges under section 306 and 498 A I.P.C. framed against Baldev Kaur @ Gurdev Kaur and dismiss the petition so far as Dilbagh Singh is concerned.Revision Partly allowed. *******