ARUN KUMAR ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 6. 5. 1994 whereby charge was framed against the petitioners under sections 498a and 306 Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have prayed that the charge framed against them is liable to be quashed. Earlier, a charge had been framed against the petitioners along with one Subhash Chand, brother of petitioners no. 1, 3 and 4 and son of petitioner no. 2 under section 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code vide order dated 20. 3. 1992. The petitioners had challenged the said order of framing of charge through a revision petition filed in this court being criminal revision no. 48 of 1992. The said revision petition was disposed of vide order dated 7. 1. 1994 whereby the order framing the charge was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh consideration on the question of framing of charge. ( 2 ) AFTER remand, the trial court reconsiderd the matter and by the impugned order dated 6. 5. 1994 framed charges against the petitioners including the said Subhash Chand under sections 498a and 306 Indian- Penal Code. ( 3 ) THE broad facts for purpose of appreciating the controversy in the present case are: Smt. Veena,deceased was married to Subhash Chand in January, 1986. After the. marriage, she started living along with her husband and her mother-in- law, petitioner no. 2; brother-in-law, petitioner no. l, and two sisters-in-law Shashi and Suman in the matrimonial home. According to the dying declaration of the deceased Smt. Veena, there was always some quarrel on petty matters in the house. Her sisters-in-law always used to quarrel with her. Her mother- in-law and her husband also used to side with her sisters-in-law. It was further stated in the dying declaration that Suman had slapped the deceased about three and a half months before the incident and had also thrown soap water in her eyes and had pushed her. Thereafter, the deceased started living separately on the First floor of the house along with her husband and children. The rest of the family members lived on the ground floor. Tension always prevailed in their house. On the day of the incident, Veena, wanted to go for a function in connection with the son of her sister. When she asked her husband to accompany her, he refused. The rest of the family members lived on the ground floor. Tension always prevailed in their house. On the day of the incident, Veena, wanted to go for a function in connection with the son of her sister. When she asked her husband to accompany her, he refused. Upon this, there was a quarrel between her and her husband. Her husband slapped her during this quarrel. After this, she bolted her husband and children inside the room and consumed dalfi an insecticide and thereafter poured kerosene oil on herself and set herself on fire. ( 4 ) VEENA sustained severe burn injuries which resulted in her death on 5. 6. 1989. The dying declaration of the deceased became the first information report and case under section 306 Indian Penal Code was registered. . On completion of the investigation, the petitioners alongwith co-accused Subhash Chand were chargesheeted and charge was framed on 20. 3. 1992 under section 306 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) IN the present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 6. 5. 1994 whereby charge was framed against them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under sections 498a and 306 Indian Penal Code. While framing the charge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred to the dying declaration of Veena and statements of her father, mother and brother. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioners in the face of the dying declaration of the deceased, the statements of her father, mother and brother have no value. What they have stated is contrary to the dying declaration of the deceased. In her dying declaration, Veena is categorical when she says "i did not have any quarrel with my in-laws for dowry. " Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the present case cannot be a case of dowry-related -offence. ( 7 ) REGARDING cruelty as well as charge under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, he submits that no case is made out against the petitioners since admittedly the deceased had started living separately along with her husband and children on the first floor of the house for three and a half months prior to the date of the incident. ( 8 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given careful consideration to their respective contentions. ( 8 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given careful consideration to their respective contentions. A perusal of the 859 impugned order shows that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has proceeded mainly on the basis of statements of the parents and brother of the deceased and the dying declaration has not been given its due importance. To my mind, the following portion of the dying declaration of the deceased is very important : "there used to be altercation oftenly in the house on some small and trivial matters. My sisters-in-law and husband do not support me. My husband does not bother.- for my words. Some 3-1/2 months-ago Suman had slapped me, pushed me and had thrown soappy water in my eyes. After that, I along with my children and husband started residing separately on the 1st floor of the house. Even thereafter tension continued in the family. Today, I asked my husband to accompany to the chola-Ceremony of my sister s son. But he refused to go. On this I and my husband had a quarrel. My husband slapped me in anger. After that I kept my husband and children in our room by bolting the same from outside and outside the room, I first consumed insecticide used for killing the bed-bugs named "def and after that poured kerosene oil and put my ownself on fire. I have done so being tired of the daily quarrels. I did not have any quarrel with my in- laws for dowry. I have heard the statement and the same is correct. " ( 9 ) THE dying declaration was recorded when the deceased was "conscious, coherent, answering to questions and fit for statement" as per the doctor s certificate. As per the dying declaration, it is not a case of harrasment on account of demand of dowry as the deceased specifically says "i did not have any quarrel with my in-laws for dowry". The dying declaration was recorded by a Magistrate. Whenever there are allegations of demand of dowry, the daughter-in-law has to be the prime source for assessment or veracity of such allegations. Whatever her parents or brother or sister have to say about it is normallybased on what they are told by her in this connection. Such demands by the husband or the in- laws are in the first instance normally directed to the lady. Whatever her parents or brother or sister have to say about it is normallybased on what they are told by her in this connection. Such demands by the husband or the in- laws are in the first instance normally directed to the lady. it is she who in turn informs her parents or near relations about the same. Cases where such demands are directly made to the parents or near relations of the lady are comparatively far too less. In the present case, the deceased has herself categorically stated that there was no quarrel with the in laws for dowry. Therefore, the in-laws cannot be roped in at the instance of her parents or brother. ( 10 ) THIS brings us to Section 498a under which provisions a charge - has been framed against the petitioners. The section is reproduced as. under :, "498a. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For purposes of this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause. grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman", or (b) harrassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. " ( 11 ) THE petitioners are relations of the husband, i. e. , mother, brother. and sisters of the husband. The question is can it be said that they subjected the deceased to cruelty ? The explanation appended to the section says : (a) wilful conduct of such a nature,as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide; (b) harrassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand fur any properly or valuable security. The explanation appended to the section says : (a) wilful conduct of such a nature,as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide; (b) harrassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand fur any properly or valuable security. ( 12 ) ON the view that I have taken above on the question of dowry in the face of the dying declaration, sub-para (b) is not attracted. It cannot be said that there was any harrasment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. ( 13 ) THIS brings me to consideration of applicability of sub-para (a ). For this, it is important to note that on her own showing the deceased was living separately along with her husband and children for about three and a half months before the incident. Secondly, her dying declaration shows that- there used to be altercations in the family on trivial matters. She also says that her sisters-in-law quarrelled with her and her husband and mother-in-law did not support her on such occasions. In fact, she had a grievance against her husband when she said that he did not bother for her words. Such statements show that there was never any serious dispute or quarrel between the deceased and the other family members. There were only trivial matters. In fact, she only blames her husband and the mother-in-law for not supporting her on such occasions. This also shows that she had no quarrel with her mother-in-law as such, she only had a grouse against her because the mother-in-law did hot take her side on the occasions of such quarrels. In any case, the petitioner no. 1, i. e. , the brother of the husband nowhere figures. On the basis of such allegations, no case of cruelty can even prima facie be made out. Thus, no charge under Section 498a can be framed against the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 14 ) SECTION 306 Indian Penalcode is reproduced below : 306. Abetment of suicide.-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. ( 14 ) SECTION 306 Indian Penalcode is reproduced below : 306. Abetment of suicide.-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. " ( 15 ) IT is obvious that if no case under Section 498a Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case, section 306 Indian Penal Code will also be out. The deceased was living separately from the petitioners for more than three months before the incident and even prior to that when all were living together, the disharmony in the family was only on account of trivial matters. Such- incidents even if they were,happened three and a half months prior to the date of the incident- and cannot bring the case within section 306 Indian Penal Code so far as the present petitioners are concerned. ( 16 ) THE result is that the impugned order so far as it relates to the petitioners is concerned, is set aside. No charge under Section 498a and- 306 Indian Penal Code is liable to be framed against the petitioners. ( 17 ) THE petition stands disposed of.