THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6390 OF 2010 DATED:15-12-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.168 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State. None appeared for the 2nd respondent though served with notice. Perused the records. 3. 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad against the petitioners-A2 to A5 and her husband-A1 alleging offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’), and the learned Magistrate referred the same to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Thereupon, police registered F.I.R.No.143 of 2009 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioners-A2 to A5 along with A1 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Act. 4. Petitioners 1 and 2-A2 and A3 are the sisters and petitioners 3 and 4-A4 and A5 are the brothers of A1. According to the complainant, her marriage with A1 was performed on 29-04-1998 and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry besides 5 tulas of gold; one Hero Honda bike and other household articles, worth Rs.30,000/- and that for three years thereafter they led happy marital life and were blessed with two children and thereafter the accused started demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and harassing the complainant and also beating her for not complying with the same. 5. A perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet would disclose that the thrust of the allegations is directed only against the husband-A1. Except making a bald and omnibus allegation that all the petitioners-A2 to A5 also demanded additional dowry and harassed the complainant and beat her, no specific allegation is made with reference to any date or even as to when or in what manner the said harassment was meted out to her. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the married sisters of A1 and they are living elsewhere in their matrimonial homes away from A1 and the petitioners 3 and 4, brothers of A1, are also residing in different places. In the complaint or in the charge sheet, no particular averment is made attributing any particular overt act to any of the petitioners- A2 to A5, attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences. 7. In a catena of decisions, the apex Court held that prosecution of the family members for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, based on vague and omnibus allegations without any specific overt act being attributed to them, amounts to abuse of process of law. In a recent decision in PREETI GUPTA & ANOTHER v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER[1], the apex Court held as follows: “Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases”. 8. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, wherein except making a bald allegation against all the petitioners-A2 to A5 no further incriminating material is placed on record, prima facie, attracting the ingredients of the alleged offence, it is considered that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners, who are brothers and sisters of A1, in C.C.No.168 of 2009, is clearly an abuse of process of law. It is therefore considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings against the petitioners-A2 to A5 in C.C.No.168 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad and they are accordingly quashed. 9. Criminal Petition is allowed as stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th December, 2010 Tsy [1] AIR 2010 SUPREME COUT 3363