IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5204 OF 2009 Between: Md.Abdul Rahman and four others …Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5204 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-5 in C.C.No.111 of 2009, on the ﬁle of the VII-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Warangal. 2. Though the husband of the complainant is shown as 1st petitioner/A-1, it is not pressed by him and the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the name of the 1st petitioner is deleted. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 to A-5. None appeared for the 2nd respondent herein. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent- State. Perused the record. 4. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the police registered a case in Cr.No.244 of 2008 of KUC police and after investigation ﬁled a charge sheet against the petitioners/A-2 to A-5 and A-1 alleging oﬀences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A-1 is the husband of the complainant. A-2 is the brother and A-3 and A-4 are the sisters of A-1. A-5 is the husband of A-4. 5. According to the complainant, her marriage with A-1 was performed about 20 years back and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.1 lakh in cash and 200 yards of site in Sy.No.7 on the outskirts of Gopalpuram village to the husband towards dowry and that during the wedlock, she gave birth to four daughters and one son and the marriage of the elder daughter was also performed about one and half years prior to giving the complaint. The complainant alleges that the husband has started harassing her mentally and physically demanding her to get more money from her parents by selling the house site plot given at the time of marriage. The thrust of the allegations contained in the complaint and also charge sheet is directed only against A-1. The only allegation made against petitioners herein/A-2 to A-5 is that they along with mother-in-law Fathima Begum tried to do away with the life of the complainant. The charge sheet shows that the name of the mother-in-law Fathima Begum was deleted as there was no incriminating material against her. The allegation made against the mother-in-law and the petitioners/A-2 to A-5 is common and is to the eﬀect that they all tried to do away with the life of the complainant. The particulars of the alleged incident are no where mentioned either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. The said allegation, therefore, remains totally baseless. The other allegation made against A-2 to A-5 is that they instigated A-1 to harass the complainant mentally and physically to extract more money. Even the said allegation is also vague and bereft of any details as to how, when and in what manner the instigation was made. It was not even stated that as to what was the amount that was demanded from the parents of the complainant. 6. It is well settled that in the absence of any speciﬁc allegations nor any speciﬁc overt acts attributed, the kith and kin in the family of the husband cannot be dragged into the criminal proceedings and such a practice is deprecated. In the present case also, there is no speciﬁc allegation made against the petitioners/A-2 to A-5 nor any speciﬁc overt acts attributed to him prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged oﬀences. Based on the vague and wild allegations which are couched in general terms, the prosecution of petitioners/A-2 to A-5 is wholly unwarranted. It is, therefore, considered a ﬁt case where the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash further proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-5 in C.C.No.111of 2009, on the file of the VII-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Warangal and they are accordingly quashed. The proceedings against the husband/A-1 can, however, go on. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st December, 2011 Lrkm