THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P No.2426 of 2008 Date: 24.6.2010 Between: Velamuri Andallu, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and others …………Petitioners/accused A2, 3 & 5. And 1. Velamuri Ananthalakshmi Satya Sree, Palakollu, West Godavari District 2. The State of A.P. rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …………….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P No.2426 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are A2, A3 & A5 in C.C.No.95 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakollu, West Godavari District. A charge sheet has been filed against these petitioners and two other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 (2) read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 based on the report lodged by the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant with the police. It is alleged that the marriage between the 1st respondent and A1 was performed on 25.1.1995. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.65,000/-, 15 sovereigns of gold and saree samans were given as pasupukunkuma. Out of their wedlock, a child was born. During the second pregnancy, it is alleged that A1 and A3 did not provide food or shelter and the petitioners instigated A1 during their visit to Valluru. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, the marriage between the 1st respondent and A1 was performed on 25.1.1995. Basing on the report lodged by the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioners and other accused in the year 2007. The 1st petitioner is the wife of A3. The 2nd petitioner is the elder brother of A1. The 3rd petitioner is the brother-in- law of A3 and the petitioners are the residents of Jubili Hills, Hyderabad. According to them, they never visited Valluru, where the offence involving under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was committed. The village Valluru is situated in the West Godavari District, which is far away from the place of the respondents and the petitioners. It was alleged against the petitioners that during the visit to Valluru, the petitioners instigated A1 to harass the 1st respondent and on their instigation, A1 used to abuse and ill-treat the 1st respondent. The analysis of the judgments in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others[1], which was reiterated in Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala and another[2], Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti[3] makes it clear that with the object of Section 498-A IPC, is to prevent dowry menace and this provision is being misused quite often by falsely implicating the relatives of the husband of the defacto-complainant with a view to harass them. It has been, however, laid down in the above judgment that when there is no specific allegation containing the overt acts committed by each of the accused constituting the offence under Section 498-A IPC, the First Information Report as well as the charge sheet are liable to be quashed. It is not enough to mention such sweeping and general allegations. If the First Information Report or Charge Sheet based on such vague and sweeping allegations, involving close relatives of the husband of the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant is allowed to subsist and the trial proceeds against such accused, it is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgments held that when the allegations mentioned in the FIR or charge sheet do not disclose a prima facie case against the accused attracting the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC, the proceedings are liable to be quashed by exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the instant case also there are no specific allegations against the petitioners except making bald allegations that whenever the petitioners visited Valluru village, they used to instigate A1 to harass the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant. As per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, if such a prosecution is allowed to be continued it is nothing but an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.95 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakollu, West Godavari District so far as they relate to the petitioners (A2, A3 & A5), are quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date: 24.06.2010 mrb [1] AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 3100 [2] 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 497 (SC) [3] 2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 146 (SC)