The judgment emphasizes the need for clear and specific allegations to constitute the offense under section 406 Indian Penal Code and the lack of prima facie evidence to support the case under section 498-A Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. for quashing of FIR. No. 140/99 u/s 498a/406 INDIAN PENAL CODE PS Patel Nagar qua the petitioner; the married sister-in-law "nanad" of the complainant (Respondent no. 2 ). Admit.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and respondent no. 2 who is appearing in person.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are: on 16. 1. 1994 (Respondent No. 2 - complainant) was married to Major Sanjeev Kaloti who was serving in the indian Army; the marriage was solemnised in Delhi; she lived with her husband at the places of his postings, firstly at Kanpur and at Dibrugarh, Assam. The petitioner, at the time of marriage of her brother Sanjeev was working as an assistant in the Ministry of Finance, Delhi and was allotted Government accommodation. On 16. 11. 1997 the petitioner was married and she is living in her matrimonial home at Noida. On 9th June, 1998 respondent no. 2 sent a detailed complaint to the DCP, CAW Cell, Nanakpura, Delhi alleging physical and mental torture by her husband and his other family members on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of the same abovenoted case was registered. Investigations have been completed. Challan has been filed. Against the petitioner it was alleged:-

" (A) besides above mentioned articles my in-laws had demanded and had taken Gold ornaments i. e. 1 Chain, 1 Ring for Shri P. R-Kaloty, father-in-law, golden chain and ear-rings and a golden bracelet for Mrs. Swaran kaloty (mother-in-law) one golden chain, bracelet and earring for Ms. Anu (sister-in-law) and 2 golden sets, 2 gold chain, 2 gold bangles, gold rings, and 6 gold ear-rings for myself and later on their demand for a golden Mangal-Sutra was also met by my parents. . . . "

" (B) the Govt. quarter allotted to Mrs. Anu gill (Sister-in-law) is learnt to have been in the possession of parents of my husband illegally and is being used by them for their illegal and other nefarious activities which I feel ashamed and not in a position to express myself in writing. ,. . . "

" (C) till January, 1998 the pay and allowances of my husband were being received by my in-laws at delhi and only 10% of the pay and allowance were being received by us to meet our domestic expenses which were quite meagre and not sufficient to meet out essential requirements at home. With great difficulty my father-in-law and my husband arrange its disbursement at our place of posting since february, 1998. Thereafter a lot of criminal force by way of beating me and my son had started by my husband at the behest and intimation by Shri. P. R. Kaloty, Mrs. Swaran Kaloty and Mrs. Anu Gill (Family of my husband) followed by breaking and destruction of domestic property provided by my parents mercilessly and (d) that it was at the behest and sudden demand of my husband (after the receipt of telephone call from his father at Delhi) that I should arrange rs. ll lakh in cash to meet the expenses for "chuchak" to be given by his parents to M. S. Anu gill (Sister-in-law) as she was in family way and also a brand new Maruti Car and certain other domestic costly appliances for Ms. Anu Gill from my parents who were at that time on live in Delhi. My husband gave me strict instructions to meet above demands immediately otherwise he shall get me killed. . . . . . . "

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and that no case either under section 498-A or 406indian PENAL CODE is made out against her even if the allegations are taken to be true in verbatim. Respondents argued to the contrary.

( 5 ) LEGAL position regarding inherent powers of court to quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of law is well settled by several authoritative pronouncements. Reference can be made to the Supreme Court decision in K. Ramakrishna and Ors vs. State of Bihar and Anr. JT 2000 (Supp