ORDER : S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J. 1. Accused nos.3 & 4 are before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.PC with a prayer to set aside the order dated 12.01.2018 passed in S.C.No.591/2015 by the Court of LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioners herein who are arrayed as accused nos.3 & 4 in S.C.No.591/2015 pending on the file of the Court of LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, are charge- sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 201 read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, along with accused no.1. 4. In the said proceedings, the petitioners had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.PC with a prayer to discharge them from the charge-sheeted offences. The said application was opposed by the prosecution. 5. The Trial Court vide the order impugned, has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 227 of Cr.PC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that petitioner no.1/accused no.3 is the paternal uncle of accused no.1- husband, petitioner no.2/accused no.4 is the mother of accused no.1. Petitioner no.1 is the resident of Kanakapura Taluk and petitioner no.2 is the resident of Channapatna Taluk. Accused no.1 and his wife who is the deceased in the present case were undisputedly residing in Bengaluru and the death had taken in their house at Bengaluru. There is no allegation against the petitioners that they had harassed or ill-treated the deceased in furtherance of demand for payment of dowry immediately prior to the alleged date of incident. Only for the reason that petitioners are the near relatives of accused no.1, they have been falsely implicated in the criminal case. The allegations against the petitioners is omnibus and baseless. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He submits that in the first information as well as in the charge sheet, there is an allegation that petitioners herein had not only demanded dowry at the time of marriage of the deceased with accused no.1, but even thereafter they had made further demand for payment of additional dowry. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He submits that in the first information as well as in the charge sheet, there is an allegation that petitioners herein had not only demanded dowry at the time of marriage of the deceased with accused no.1, but even thereafter they had made further demand for payment of additional dowry. It is also alleged that petitioners used to frequently visit the house of accused no.1 and the deceased at Bengaluru and were ill-treating and harassing the deceased in furtherance of their demand for additional dowry. The Trial Court, therefore, was justified in dismissing the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.PC. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the marriage of accused no.1 - Ashok with deceased Vasantha was solemnized on 25.02.2010. The alleged incident has taken place on 31.07.2014. The first information in the present case is submitted by Ramadas (CW-1) who is the father of deceased Vasantha. In the first information, he has averred that at the time of marriage of accused no.1 with his daughter Vasantha, he had paid dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and also had given gold ornaments and other valuables as dowry to his son-in-law who is accused no.1 in the present case. He has also stated that after the marriage, accused no.1 and his daughter Vasantha were residing in Bengaluru and for a period of one year she was looked after properly and from the wedlock, a male child was born to them. He has averred that accused nos.1 to 4 had demanded a further dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- for the purpose of taking a house on lease at Bengaluru and in this background, his daughter was being harassed and ill-treated which was informed by her to him over phone. He has also stated that about eight months prior to the date of death, his daughter - Vasantha was sent back to her parents house, and thereafter, a panchayath was held and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to accused no.1 with a request to take care of Vasantha. He has stated that on 30.07.2010 at about 2.10 a.m., he was informed that his daughter had died due to heart attack. He has stated that on 30.07.2010 at about 2.10 a.m., he was informed that his daughter had died due to heart attack. Since he suspected the cause of death, he had approached the police and based on his first information, FIR was registered against accused nos.1 to 4. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the present case only as against accused nos.1, 3 & 4, and accused no.2 - Shilpa who is the daughter of accused no.3 has been dropped from the charge sheet. 9. According to the prosecution, as per the demand made by the accused, at the time of marriage, dowry was given by the parents and family members of the deceased. It is not in dispute that after the marriage, accused no.1 and his wife Vasantha who is the deceased in the present case were residing at Bengaluru in a rented house at Girinagar. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that accused nos.3 & 4 used to visit the said house at Girinagar and quarrel with the deceased on petty issues and were ill-treating her with a demand to bring a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for taking a house on lease in Bengaluru. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that about eight months prior to the death of Vasantha, she was sent to her parents house with a demand to bring additional dowry, and thereafter, a panchayath was held and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to accused no.1 in the presence of CWs-12 to 16. It is also stated that a request was made to accused no.1 to take care of his wife Vasantha. 10. The presence of accused nos.3 & 4 along with accused no.1, when the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid and request was made to take care of Vasantha, is not stated in the charge sheet. The charge sheet does not also state that immediately prior to the alleged date of incident, accused nos.3 & 4 had visited the house of accused no.1 and his wife - Vasantha and had ill-treated or harassed Vasantha in furtherance of the alleged demand for payment of dowry. 11. The charge sheet does not also state that immediately prior to the alleged date of incident, accused nos.3 & 4 had visited the house of accused no.1 and his wife - Vasantha and had ill-treated or harassed Vasantha in furtherance of the alleged demand for payment of dowry. 11. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that a few days from the date on which a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to accused no.1, he had forcibly taken the gold ornaments of his wife - Vasantha and had pledged the same in Mannapur Finance at Hanumanthanagara, Bengaluru, for a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- and he had utilized the said amount for his own purpose and had demanded to bring additional sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as dowry. It is alleged that in furtherance of his demand to bring additional dowry, he was ill-treating his wife and on the intervening night of 30.07.2014 and 31.07.2014, at about 1.30 a.m., when deceased Vasantha was sleeping in their house bearing No.41, 4 th Main, M.M.Road, within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura Polcie Station, accused no.1 for the reason that she had not brought additional dowry, strangulated her neck with a waist belt and committed her murder. 12. There is no allegation against the petitioners in the charge sheet that they were present in the house on the date accused no.1 had allegedly committed the murder of his wife - Vasantha by strangulating her neck with a waist belt. The charge sheet material do not even remotely state that accused nos.3 & 4 had ill-treated or harassed the deceased in furtherance of the alleged demand for payment of additional dowry immediately prior to the date of her death. 13. Section 304B of IPC reads as under: " 304B. Dowry death .- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is show that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life." 14. From a reading of the aforesaid provision of law, it is apparent that there should be material in the charge sheet which would prima facie show that soon before the death, the deceased should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in furtherance of the demand for dowry, and it is only then such a death can be called as dowry death. No such material is available on record in the present case. There is no such allegation in the charge sheet that after the deceased was brought back to her husband's house and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to accused no.1 - husband, as per the demand made by him for payment fo dowry, accused nos.3 & 4 had visited the house of accused no.1 at any point of time. There is also no material which would prima facie go to show that the petitioners/accused nos.3 & 4 have attempted to destroy any evidence in the present case. 15. The allegations in the charge sheet relating to the period after the deceased was brought back from her parents house to the house of her husband at Bengaluru, is only as against accused no.1 and no allegation whatsoever is found as against accused nos.3 & 4 after deceased was brought back to her husband's house. 16. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in rejecting the discharge application in its entirety. From the aforesaid analysis of the matter, it is apparent that there is absolutely no material as against accused nos.3 & 4 which would attract the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 302 & 201 IPC against them. At best, only offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act would get attracted against them. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the discharge application of the petitioners. Accordingly, the following order: 17. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. At best, only offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act would get attracted against them. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the discharge application of the petitioners. Accordingly, the following order: 17. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. The petitioners/accused nos.3 & 4 are discharged for the offences under Sections 304B, 302 & 201 IPC, and their prayer to discharge them for the offences punishable under Sections 498A IPC and Section 4 of D.P.Act, stands rejected.