THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.7460 of 2009 Date: 21.12.2011 Between: Alla Srinivasa Reddy … Petitioners/ A.1 to A.6 AND 1. The State of A.P. rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Alla Eswaramma … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.7460 of 2009 ORDER: When the petitioners, who are A.2 to A.6, sought for quashing of the case in C.C.No.306 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, Smt. Zareen Afsar, learned counsel representing Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that specific overt acts were attributed to the petitioners and that prima facie case thus was made out against the petitioners. 2. The husband of the second respondent is A.1 in the main case. He is not a party to the present petition. The father of A.1 is petitioner No.2. The brother of A.1 is petitioner No.1. The maternal uncle of A.1 is petitioner No.3. A.4 and A.5 are sisters of A.1. 3. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused demanded for additional money of ` 70,000/-, that the petitioners necked out the second respondent from matrimonial home and that the petitioners thus committed the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the second respondent- wife. In the complaint or in the statement recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., the second respondent made allegations against A.2 to A.6 as well as against A.1, albeit the allegations are omnibus, sweeping and are vague. I am afraid that unless the allegations are fairly supported by prima facie material, the available evidence cannot be accepted to continue the case on record. 4. I may examine whether any case is made out against the petitioner. Barring for making sweeping and general allegations, the second respondent did not make any concrete allegations against the accused. The dates on which the offence was committed were not mentioned. No witnesses corroborated the second respondent, through Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements. 5. The allegations against the petitioners are so vague and non-specific that it is not a fit case to continue further prosecution. Continuation of the case would indeed amount to abuse of process of law, where there is no evidence whatsoever to interlink the accused and the offence. In this background, I consider that no offence prima facie is made out against the accused. The charge sheet is liable to be quashed against A.2 to A.6, where not even prima facie case is made out and where the concrete allegations were not even made out against the accused. 6. The Criminal Petition consequently is allowed. The complaint against the petitioners in C.C.No.306 of 2009 is hereby quashed. ________________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 21.12.2011 Isn