THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No :2314 of 2009 DATED:09-12-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings in Cr.No.1 of 2009 of Mahila police station, Anantapur District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the records. 3. Based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, police registered a case in Cr.No.1 of 2009 against the petitioners-A4 and A5 for the offence under section 498-A IPC. A1 is the husband of 2nd respondent and A2 and A3 are the parents of A1. Petitioners-A4 and A5 are the brothers of A1. According to the 2nd respondent-complainant, her marriage with A1 was performed on 17-02-2008 and at the time of marriage, Rs.3,25,000/- was given as dowry besides 20 tulas of gold and that the marriage was not consummated as A1 was found to be impotent. She further alleges that in order to get over the blame for impotency, A1 used to harass her physically and mentally and A1; his parents-A2 and A3 and brothers–A4 and A5 were demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the thrust of the allegations in the complaint is only against the husband-A1 and no specific allegation is made against the petitioners-A4 and A5. 5. It is not disputed that after investigation, police filed a charge sheet against A1 to A3, wherein a reference is made to the order of stay granted by this Court in this petition and further stating that as and when the petition is disposed of, separate charge sheet will be filed against the petitioners. 6. A perusal of the complaint would disclose specific allegations against the husband-A1; his parents-A2 and A3 and also his brothers-A4 and A5. However, having regard to the fact that the 2nd petitioner is an young boy aged 16 years and a student, it is rather inconceivable that he would have joined the other accused in harassing the complainant. It is obvious that the complainant has chosen to implead both the brothers of A1 and therefore the 2nd petitioner-A5 also came to be arrayed as an accused. In the circumstances, having regard to the young age of the 2nd petitioner, it is considered that further proceedings against the 2nd petitioner-A5 can be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as no specific allegation is made against him nor any specific overt act attributed to him. However, proceedings against the 1st petitioner-A4 shall continue. 7. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed in part, quashing further proceedings against the 2nd petitioner- A5 in Cr.No.1 of 2009 of Mahila police station, Anantapur District and the same is dismissed in respect of the 1st petitioner-A4. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 09th December, 2010. Tsy