Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The complainant was married to Jagtar Singh in the month of June, 1969. It is alleged that her husband Jagtar Singh along with his brother Gurdita @ Guriya and his brothers wife Smt. Piaro demanded dowry articles from the parents of the complainant. It is further averred that although sufficient dowry was given in the marriage, yet the husbands brother and the two petitioners demanded more dowry. On his failure to give dowry articles, she was maltreated and was given beating. It is further alleged that Jagtar Singh has illicit relation with Smt. Piaro wife of Gurdita @ Guriya and on her complaint to her husband, all the accused started maltreating and beating the complainant. The demand of dowry was persisted with by the petitioner. Ultimately, the complainant was turned out of the house in June, 1970. The complainant requested her husband and the petitioner to return her dowry articles but they refused to do so. Finding no other way, the present complaint was filed for the return of dowry articles. To challenge the illegal possession of the dowry articles by the petitioners, the complaint has been filed on 19.5.1992. 3. Marriage of the complainant with Smt. Jeeto took place in the month of June, 1969. She was turned out of the house of the petitioners in June, 1970. The complaint has been filed on 19.5.1992. Thus, the entrustment of dowry articles had taken place 23 years ago i.e. more than two decades prior to the complaint. From this, it can safely be inferred that the complaint has been filed with oblique motive just to harass and humiliate the petitioners. Moreover, the marriage that had taken place with Jagtar Singh who is alleged to be the brother of petitioner No. 1 and brother-in-law of petitioner No. 2, in the present case, obviously the petitioners would not have anything to do with the dowry articles brought by the complainant. In case, the dowry articles have been brought by the complainant, the same must have been entrusted to her husband or his parents but not to the petitioners. 4. I find that the complaint has been filed after an inordinate delay of more than 23 years. In case, the dowry articles have been brought by the complainant, the same must have been entrusted to her husband or his parents but not to the petitioners. 4. I find that the complaint has been filed after an inordinate delay of more than 23 years. No reasons have been mentioned in the complaint as to why the complainant remained silent for all these years i.e. from 1969 onwards and no reason is also forthcoming as to why efforts were not made to recover the dowry articles earlier. I am of the considered view that the present complaint is clearly an abuse of the process of the Court and, thus, the complaint as well as further proceedings taken in pursuance of the filing of the said complaint are liable to be quashed. 5. Consequently, the petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is allowed and the complaint Annexure P-1 dated 19.5.1992 is quashed along with all subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance of the said complaint.