IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 2524 of 2009 Between: 1 Kandukuri Hari Kishore s/o. Vinjaya Mochanachari Plot No. 16, Sri Varalaxmidevi sadan, 12-1-169, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur Colony GSI, Nagolu, Hyderabad. 2 Kandukuri Vijaya Mohanachari S/o. Koteswara Rao Plot No. 16, Sri Varalaxmidevi sadan, 12-1-169, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur Colony GSI, Nagolu, Hyderabad. 3 Kandukuri Ramadevi W/o. Vinjaya Mochanachari Plot No. 16, Sri Varalaxmidevi sadan, 12-1-169, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur Colony GSI, Nagolu, Hyderabad. 4 Kandukuri Siva Kishore s/o. Vinjaya Mochanachari Plot No. 16, Sri Varalaxmidevi sadan, 12-1-169, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur Colony GSI, Nagolu, Hyderabad. 5 Kandukuri Ravi Kishore s/o. Vinjaya Mochanachari Plot No. 16, Sri Varalaxmidevi sadan, 12-1-169, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur Colony GSI, Nagolu, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Kandukuri Chandana @ Chandnadevi W/o. hari Kishore, Mahadeva Gandhi Begthupalle Gangaram Sathupalli, Khammam Dt. 2 State of A.P. Rep. by its P.P. High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the FIR in Cr.No. 34/2003 dt. 3.3.2009 of PS Sathupalli, The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.JAYANTI.S.C.SEKHAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: PSR, J. Crl.P.No. 2524 of 2009 O r d e r: The petitioners are the husband, parents-in-law and brothers-in-law of the de facto complainant. A private complaint was filed by the de facto complainant against them alleging offences under sections 120-B; 143, 420, 427, 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Though several allegations are made against the petitioners, against petitioner Nos. 4 and 5, who are brothers of the husband of the de facto complainant, there are no specific allegations. The allegations are omnibus in nature saying that along with other accused, they have harassed the de facto complainant. I is difficult to believe that the younger brothers of the husband of the de facto complainant would harass their sister-in-law, the wife of their elder brother. Whatever it is, as there are no specific allegations against petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 (A-4 and A-5) the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. 3. In the result the petition is allowed in respect of petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 (A-4 and A-5) quashing the proceedings in Cr.No.34 of 2009 of P.S., Sathupalli, as against them. The petition in respect of Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 shall stand dismissed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:20—10—2009. *BVS