JUDGMENT
J.K. Mehra, J.
1. In the present petition the petitioner has sought setting aside of orders dated 6th May, 1994 and 9th May, 1995 passed by the Trial Court. On 6th May, 1994 Trial Court ordered that the petitioner and four others be charged under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. Four others that is the brother, mother and two sisters of the petitioner challenged the said order vide Cr. Rev. No. 142/94 whereon this Court passed an order dated 8th September, 1994 setting aside order dated 6th May, 1994 and quashing the charge qua those four. The petitioner moved a separate petition before the Trial Court seeking reconsideration of order dated 6th May, 1994 which was declined by the ASJ vide order dated 9th May, 1995.
2. I have heard the parties. There is no dispute about the statement of wife, which has been reproduced in the order dated 8th September, 1994 passed by Arun Kumar, J. in Crl. R. 142/94. The said statement is reproduced hereunder:
“There used to be altercation often in the house on some small and trivial matters. My sister-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 soapy 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 own self on fire. I have done so being tired of the daily quarrels. I did not have any quarries with my in-laws for dowry. I have heard the statement and the same is correct.”
3. The facts of the case as unfolded by the statement of the deceased do not make out any case for abetment to commit suicide nor is any case made out under Section 498-A of IPC. In this connection, the statement “I do not have any quarrel with my in-laws for dowry” would rule out the possibility of any cruelty being involved on account of demand for dowry. The question of abetment to commit suicide is also ruled out because what is narrated by her in the statement, quoted above, is a mere domestic quarrel between husband and wife following husband’s refusal to accompany his wife to a certain ceremony to be performed at the wife’s sister’s place. I also find from her statement that she acted in a fit of anger following heated arguments and a quarrel between husband and wife in the course whereof the husband slapped her. She has also stated that she bolted the door from outside keeping the husband and children confined inside the room and outside the room, she in a fit of anger consumed ah insecticide and set fire to herself by pouring kerosene oil on her and lighting the match. The grievance of the wife appears to be that the husband was not earning for her words. It appears to be a case of a common domestic quarrel which may have its origin in the clash of ego between the wife and husband, but does not in any manner, to my mind, take the colour of an offence contemplated under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. Apparently, the Trial Court has not attached adequate importance to the dying declaration, which should have been attached to it and has proceeded merely on the statements of the parents and brother of the deceased, none of whom was present on the scene of occurrence at the time of quarrel preceding the incident. The dying declaration was recorded after she was declared fit to make such a statement by the doctor concerned. The statement was recorded by Sub- Divisional Magistrate. In my opinion, in all such cases, the importance of dying declaration of the deceased, which is made in her full senses to the Magistrate after being declared fit to make a statement by the doctor, should be treated as the prime source of assessment of the veracity of such allegations. Since there is no such allegation in the dying declaration, referred to hereinabove, I am inclined to agree that there was no harassment to the wife for demand of dowry or any abetment to commit suicide. It appears that it was a case of trivial domestic quarrels. The main quarrel between the husband and wife is that the husband was not always acting on the lines which wife wanted him to follow. According to the dying declaration, after the deceased had a quarrel with one Suman, i.e., the sister-in-law, she and her husband and children started living separately on the first floor of the house. This fact would clearly demonstrate that it is not a case where husband did not care or take proper action to protect her against his family members. Counsel for the State has not pointed out any other plea, which would help him support the impugned order to sustain charge under Sections 498A or 306 IPC. The result of the above discussion is that the impugned order relating to the petitioner cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The charge framed under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are liable to be and are hereby quashed. The proceedings, which are continuing under one of the impugned orders passed by Mr. G.D. Dhanuka, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi on 9th May, 1995 are also liable to be and are hereby set aside. No order as to costs.