The court will protect a petitioner from unnecessary harassment and jeopardy to liberty and property.

G.S.Chahal, J.

1. Ashok Kumar, petitioner by means of this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr.PC seeks the quashing of the FIR No. 120 dt. 4.6.90 for offences u/ss 304-B/498A, IPC and the subsequent proceedings taken thereunder.

2. According to the allegations made in the FIR, which was registered on 4.6.90, at Police Station Dabwali, Smt. Sharda (deceased) was married to Anil Kumar on 10.4.98. She was given substantial dowry. The petitioner is his elder brother. After marriage, Anil Kumar and his relations (including the petitioner) felt annoyed with Smt. Shardas father for not giving a Maruti car in dowry. When Smt. Sharda came to her parents house to attend the marriage and also to deliver a child, Anil Kumar and his other relations (other than the petitioner) had asked her to bring a car in Chhuchak in case of birth of a son. However, she gave birth to a daughter. When this fact was convened to Anil Kumar and others, they remarked that they should kill the daughter. Two days thereafter. Anil Kumar and Pappu took Sharda and the child to Kaluwana and killed the daughter without informing her father. Thereafter Smt. Sharda was again harassed for a Maruti car. She was beaten and also threatened that she would be killed. Whenever Shardas father visited her, Anil Kumar, his parents and sister used to make remarks that if Smt. Sharda were to live Maruti car was given. Ashok Kumar, petitioner used be fell Shardas father the till a Maruti car was given she was not to visit her parents house. After the marriage of Maya (Anil Kumars sister), her husband Sandeep also pressurised Sharda to being a car and they both used to harass her for a car. Sharda had died on 1.6.90 and the father received information about this fact on 3.6.90.

3. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner no poison was detected in the viscera and the doctor, on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, gave the opinion that no definite opinion could be given as to the cause of death. In view of these reports, the death of Sharda cannot be described to be unnatural. No dowry death has, thus, occurred in the present case. So far as harassment to Sharda is concerned, the only allegation against the petitioner is that immediately after the occurrence, he along with others, was feeling annoyed with her father for not giving Maruti car and on several occasions, the petitioner had conveyed to her father that until Maruti car was given, she would not visit her parents house. The petitioner is employed as Excise and Taxation Officer at Hissar. He had little chance of interfering with the matrimonial affairs of his brother. The allegations of harassment are thus, of vague nature. Smt. Sharda having died, her father has tried to implicate all the relations of Anil Kumar. The Court will come to the rescue of a petitioner who is being unnecessarily harassed and his liberty and property are being put to jeopardy for no good case. I hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned FIR and the consequent proceedings qua the petitioner.