The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations and evidence to constitute an offense, as well as the court's inherent power to quash proceedings when there is abuse of the legal process.

Daya Chaudhary, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.244 dated 18.08.2011 registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') at Police Station Faridabad old, District Faridabad. Said FIR was registered on the basis of complaint made by complainant respondent No.2 wherein certain allegations of demand of dowry and harassment were levelled against husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law (the present petitioner).

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with accused-Arun Kumar, who is brother of the petitioner, on 20.01.2010. No child was born out of said wedlock. Thereafter, certain differences arose between the parties due to which, the aforesaid FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is unmarried sister-in-law of the complainant and has falsely been implicated in the case whereas there is no specific allegation against her with regard to demand of dowry or harassment. After marriage of the complainant, she started residing with her husband at Faridabad. Due to the suspicion that her husband was having illicit relations with some other lady, all the family members have been implicated. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant had herself left the matrimonial home on 31.01.2010 along with all the ornaments, jewellery, clothes and cash. Thereafter, she called her husband at her parental house and took him to Pathology Lab where the medical test of her husband was conducted, wherein, he was declared impotent. Thereafter, he again got his medical test conducted from another Pathology Lab wherein he was found medically fit. Learned counsel also submits that the earlier report was fabricated by the complainant just to create an evidence. The petitioner being unmarried sister-in-law has no concern with the matrimonial dispute of complainant and her husband. Learned counsel also submits that even the parents-in-law of the complainant had executed an affidavit on 25.05.2011, which was also got published in newspaper wherein it was specifically mentioned that both the complainant and her husband were quarrelling with them and, therefore, they severed their relations. It was also stated therein that they also disinherited them from all their movable and immovable properties. Thereafter, the present FIR was got registered on 18.08.2011. Learned counsel also submits that subsequently, a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for dissolution of marriage with mutual consent was filed as the matter was settled between the parties. A sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- as full and final settlement towards permanent alimony was to be paid towards past, present and future maintenance including istridhan but the complainant backed out from the compromise after receiving an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- at the time of recording of first motion statement. Even the amount has not been returned. The present FIR is the counter blast of the same and has been registered just to put a pressure upon all the family members. The petitioner being unmarried sister-in-law has no role in any manner. Moreover, no specific allegation has been levelled against her with regard to demand of dowry or harassment.

4. Learned State counsel submits that the challan has been presented and even charges have also been framed under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 IPC by the trial Court and now the case is fixed for recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses.

5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the allegations levelled in the FIR and other documents available on the file.

6. Admittedly, the marriage of complainant-respondent No.2 was solemnized with accused-Arun Kumar (brother of the present petitioner) on 20.01.2010. Subsequently, some differences arose between the partie