HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.5676 OF 2009 DATE: 20.01.2011 BETWEEN: Ediga Eramma and another .. Petitioners And The State of A.P. and another ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.5676 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A4 and A5 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. Though the second respondent served with notice, none appears on her behalf. The second respondent lodged a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur alleging commission of offences by the petitioners and other accused punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r/w Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence and now the matter is pending as C.C.No.231 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur. The first petitioner/A4 is the married sister of A1, who is the husband of the second respondent and she has been residing in a different village with her husband. The second petitioner/A5 is the sister’s husband of A3 and he has nothing to do with the differences between A1 and the second respondent. Perusal of the complaint only discloses some general and sweeping allegations against the petitioners and they appear to be ex facie false. I n PREETI GUPTA AND ANOTHER v STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER[1] dealing with similar case the Apex Court held that there is need for restraint in allowing the prosecution for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, there is social responsibility and obligation on the bar and bench to maintain social fibre of family life, the allegations in the said complaint have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection, especially against husband’s relatives who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the matrimonial home of the complainant. The Apex Court observed that the genuine cases of dowry harassment is matter of serious concern, but exaggerated version of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints and emphasized a need for serious re-look at entire provision by Parliament. In the instant case, therefore, it is obvious on the way in which the allegations are leveled against the petitioners that they are only implicated because of their relationship with the first accused. If the prosecution is allowed to continue against them, it will result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the entire proceedings against the petitioners/A-4 & A-5 in C.C.No.231 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yemmiganur are hereby quashed and the criminal petition is allowed. _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 20.01.2011 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NO.5676 OF 2009 DATE: 20.01.2011 [1] (2010)7 SCC 667