JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in revision, whereby, the learned revisional Court upheld the order dated 21.5.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Sri Ganganagar taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of these misc. petitions are that the respondent No. 2 - Paramjeet Kaur submitted a complaint at the Police Station Chunawad against the petitioners. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant was married to the petitioner Gurcharan Singh 26 years back as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. It was also alleged that sufficient dowry was given at the time of the marriage. It was also alleged by the complainant that after her father-in-law expired, the accused-petitioners started harassing and committing cruelty upon her on account of demand of dowry. The complainant further stated that her parents, in order to keep her marriage secure, acceded to the illegal demands of the accused, but, the accused did not relent with their cruel acts. It was further alleged in the complaint that on 1.6.1997, she was asked to bring a sum of rupees two lacs from her parents. Accordingly, the amount was arranged and thereafter a kothi was constructed by the accused at Jalandhar using the said amount. The complainant further alleged that the accused turned her out of the matrimonial home two years back and since then she was living with her father. It is further alleged that numerous panchayats were convened, but, the accused refused to take the complainant tack into the matrimonial home and persisted with their demands. 3. On receiving the complaint, the Police registered an F.I.R. No. 91/2006 and commenced investigation. It is relevant to mention here that during the course of the investigation, the complainant herself filed an application before the 1.0. mentioning therein that she had filed the F.I.R. under a misconception and due to minor differences with her husband and that she did not want any further action to be taken in the matter. After conclusion of the investigation, a negative final report was submitted by the police in the Court concerned. mentioning therein that she had filed the F.I.R. under a misconception and due to minor differences with her husband and that she did not want any further action to be taken in the matter. After conclusion of the investigation, a negative final report was submitted by the police in the Court concerned. The complainant-respondent No. 2 was issued a notice of the F.R., upon which, she filed a protest petition and examined herself and her brothers Nihal Singh, Harpal Singh and Preetpal Singh in support of the protest petition. The learned Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, First Class No. 2, Sri Ganganagar rejected the F.R. and took cognizance against the petitioners for the offices under Sections 406 and 498 A I.P.C. The accused-petitioners challenged the order taking cognizance by filing two separate revision petitions, the learned revisional Court affirmed the order taking cognizance. Hence, these misc. petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the orders passed by the learned sub-ordinate Courts. 4. Looking to the fact that the spouses had married almost 26 years back, this Court felt that the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties could be explored by sending the matter to the Mediator, Mediation Centre, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. However, the mediation proceedings failed. 5. Learned counsel Shri Dron Kaushik appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that ex facie the allegations levelled by the complainant against the petitioners are false and fabricated on the face of the record. He submitted that the complainant married with the petitioner Gurcharan Singh almost 26 years back. He further submitted that the spouses resided at Jalandhar after the marriage. Three sons were born from the wedlock. Two are married and are living happily with their father. Learned counsel submitted that even if the allegations levelled by the complainant in the F.I.R. and the statements of the complainant and her witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are accepted to be true at their highest, then also, the proceedings being undertaken against the accused are absolutely uncalled for and unjustified. He submitted that the last incident of the alleged demand of money from the complainant took place on 1.6.1997. The F.I.R. was filed in the year 2006. He submitted that the last incident of the alleged demand of money from the complainant took place on 1.6.1997. The F.I.R. was filed in the year 2006. Learned counsel submitted that the spouses neveresided together at Sri Ganganagar and yet the complainant has chosen the Court at Sri Ganganagar to prosecute the petitioners for oblique motives. Learned counsel thus submitted that the orders passed by the learned sub-ordinate Courts taking cognizance against the petitioners and all the subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed as they amount to a gross abuse of the process of the Court. 6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel Shri D.S. over appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel tor the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that there is a specific allegation of the complainant in the F.I.R. and her statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. supported by the statements of her brothers examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. that the accused harassed the complainant on account of bringing less dowry. Learned counsel for the complainant thus prayed that the order taking cognizance against the petitioners should not be interfered with. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at the bar, perused the orders passed by the learned sub-ordinate Courts as well as the record. 8. The learned trial Judge has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. The offence under Section 406 I.P.C. would be made out only if there is a specific allegation regarding the `stridhan' of the complainant being entrusted to the accused and thereafter being misappropriated dishonestly or converted to their own use. From a perusal of the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., it is evident that she did not allege that any of her `stridhan' articles were entrusted to the accused. Thus, prima facie ingredients of offence under Section 406 I.P.C. are not made out against the petitioners. So far as the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is concerned, the complainant alleged that after her father-in-law expired, her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and husband started harassing and turned her out of the house. No date or time period was mentioned as to when the complainant was harassed or dowry was demanded from her. So far as the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is concerned, the complainant alleged that after her father-in-law expired, her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and husband started harassing and turned her out of the house. No date or time period was mentioned as to when the complainant was harassed or dowry was demanded from her. She was allegedly turned out from matrimonial home in the year 2004 and the F.I.R. was filed by her in the year 2006. She herself gave an application to the 1.0. on 3.7.2006 mentioning therein that she had filed the F.I.R. under misconception and wanted to withdraw the same. The complainant whilst deposing under Section 200 Cr.P.C. did not challenge the veracity of the application submitted by her to the I.O. The complainant has further alleged that she and her husband lived together at Jalandhar after the marriage. The alleged harassment and cruelty in relation to demand of dowry is alleged to have been meted out to the complainant at Jalandhar. There is no allegation of the complainant regarding any act of cruelty having been committed with her by the accused at Sri Ganganagar. Thus, it is obvious that the complainant filed the complaint at Sri Ganganagar for oblique motives and for causing undue harassment to the accused despite the fact that to part of the alleged offences happened in the Ganganagar Court's jurisdiction. 9. The complainant gave birth to three sons from her wedlock with the petitioner Gurcharan Singh. Two are married and all are living happily with their father. None of the major children came forward to depose that their mother was ever ill treated by the accused on account of bringing less dowry. Thus, the prosecution launched by the complainant against the accused-petitioners at Sri Ganganagar and the order taking cognizance is totally unjustified and amounts to a gross abuse of the process of the Court. 10. In wake of the above discussion, the misc. petitions are allowed. The order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar in revisions and the order dated 21.5.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. 2, Sri Ganganagar taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. and all other subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed.Record be sent back forthwith. Stay petitions are disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******