HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.7527 of 2008 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 in CC No.677 of 2007 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The 2nd respondent herein gave a complaint to the police against petitioners-A.4 and A.5 and 8 others, alleging the offences under sections 498-A, 323, 406, 506 IPC and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, based on which the WPS CCS, Hyderabad registered a case in Cr.No.371 of 2006 and after investigation filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.10 for the above said offences and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in CC No.677 of 2007. 4. According to the complainant, her marriage with A.1 took place on 05.06.2002 and at the time of the marriage, as demanded by the accused, the complainant’s brother, who performed the marriage, as her father was no more, paid Rs.50,000/- cash and presented Hero Honda splendor motor cycle, four tulas of gold, furniture and house-hold articles to the accused. A.2 is stated to be spinster and A.3 is stated to be widow and they were residing under the same roof and A.4 to A.10 are the sisters of A.1 and their husbands and they were residing at different places, but used to visit the house of A.1 frequently. The complainant alleges that after birth of a girl child, the accused started demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- and subjected to physical and mental harassment over the said demand. It is further alleged that A.2 to A.10 threatened the complainant to give divorce and to perform another marriage for A.1 if their demand for additional dowry is not met. It is further alleged that even while she was taking shelter in her brother’s house, accused were visiting the said place and reiterating their demand for additional dowry or to give divorce to A.1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no specific allegations have been made against the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 and based on the omnibus and general allegations, the prosecution against the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 is not warranted. A.4 is the sister of A.1 and A.5 is the husband of A.4. Even according to the averments in the charge sheet, A.4 and A.5 were residing away from the house of A.1. A.1 is a resident of Narsing, whereas A.4 and A.5 are residing at Uppal. The only allegation made against the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 is that they were also instigating A.1 along with other accused and subjected the complainant for harassment and ill-treatment over the demand for additional dowry. The complaint or the charge sheet does not disclose any specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 in the matter of the alleged harassment and ill treatment. The allegation made against the petitioners is omnibus and couched with general terms without containing any specific details with reference to the dates or events. The practice of dragging all the kith and kin and other members of the family into prosecution based on vague and omnibus allegation is deprecated by the Supreme Court and this court on several occasions. 6.In the present case also, without making any specific allegations and without attributing specific overt acts to the petitioners-A.4 and A.5, they are sought to be proceeded along with others based on the omnibus allegations couched in general terms to the effect that they also instigated A.1 to harass and ill- treat the complainant. It is therefore, considered a fit case where inherent powers of the court can be invoked to quash further proceedings against the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 in CC No.677 of 2007 as the prosecution of the petitioners on vague and wild allegation would only be an abuse of process of law. In the circumstances, further proceedings against the petitioners-A.4 and A.5 in CC No.677 of 2007 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.12.2011 bss