5. Point : In the charge sheet it is only alleged against the petitioner that she used to mislead, misrepresent and instigate the first accused against the de-facto complainant and it is further alleged that she used to say that if her son had married another woman, they would have got a dowry of Rs.40,00,000/- It does not speak in what way the petitioner harassed the de-facto complainant and when and where and in what context she stated that if her son had married another woman they would have got dowry of Rs.40,00,000/- and even supposing that such a statement regarding the dowry was made by the petitioner unless there is supporting material, it can not be said that it is sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further in the absence of specific record, any amount of evidence adduced in the trail of the case may not be suffice to convict the petitioner for the alleged offences.