Vague and unsubstantiated allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry, coupled with a judgment of acquittal in a related case, can amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and warrant quashing of the FIR.

S.S.Grewal, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) relates to quashment of FIR No. 221 dated 3rd April, 1989 (Annexure P/1) registered against the petitioners, under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station City, Ambala.

2. In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition which emerge from the impugned first information report, are, that the marriage between Parveen Kumari complainant and Rajesh Kumar petitioner No. 1 took place at Ambala city on 10th February, 1988, according to Hindu rites. Thereafter both of them lived together as husband and wife. The complainant stayed at the house of her in-laws because her husband was employed in the Indian Air Force, and, he used to pay frequent visits to the house of his parents. According to the allegations of the complainant, soon after her marriage the behaviour of the accused petitioners towards her was indifferent, and, they used to harass and humiliate her, in order to compel her to bring more dowry from her parents. This behaviour continued and the conditions went on from bad to worse, when the accused started assaulting the complainant physically, in order to compel her to bring cash, more dowry, coloured T.V. and V.C.R. from her parents. The father of the complainant who is a retired person, belongs to middle class family and could not meet the demands. The harassment and cruelty towards the complainant by the accused petitioners continued as before till March, 1988. In June, 1988, Rajesh Kumar petitioner came on leave for 20 days. On day of his arrival, at the instance of his other co-accused petitioners, he gave fist blows to the complainant And slapped her. The complainant became unconscious- On the very next day Rajesh Kumar petitioner left the complainant at the house of her parents, at the instance of his other co-accused. Thereafter on the intervention of common friends of the family, the complainant was left at her matrimonial home on the assurance that she would be kept nicely. However, the petitioners other than the husband of the complainant again started maltreating her and also gave her beatings, in order to coerce her to bring more dowry from her parents. In August, 1988 the complainant was again given beatings by the petitioners other than her husband, was turned out of the house and at that time they retained the articles including jewellery which was her Streedhan and was meant for her exclusive use.

3. The learned counsel for the parties were heard. On behalf of the petitioners it has mainly been submitted that Rajesh Kumar petitioner filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights against his wife Parveen Kumari, the present complainant. Judgment of the Additional District Judge, Ambala dated 3.1.1989 shows that the complainant party in the present case has specifically pleaded and produced evidence that she was subjected to beatings at her matrimonial home for not bringing sufficient dowry in marriage that she was turned out of the matrimonial home by her parents-in-laws on 2.8.1988 on the pretext that she would be welcome back if she brings T.V., V.C.R. etc. from her parents. the Additional Distinct Judge on the basis of two letters written by the respondent wife that she was living very happily at the house of her parents-in-law but due to non-availability of residential accommodation with the Air Force authorities, the petitioner could not arrange for a family accommodation. In one of her letters she specifically mentioned that she left the house on 25-8-1988. Even father of the respondent admitted in that case that the only dispute between the parties was that his daughter could be sent to her husband to the place of his posting and not at the house of her parents-in-law. The change in stand by the respondent wife was also taken into consideration by the Additional Distric