THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8691 of 2008 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.8850 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners in both the petitions, who are A1 and A7 respectively, are accused of offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. A1 is husband of the 1st respondent/de facto complainant. A7 is married sister of A1. Marriage of the 1st respondent with A1 took place on 24.12.2007. It is alleged that A1 pronounced Thalak (divorce) to the 1st respondent as per Muslim law on 06.05.2008 and it was published in ‘Siyasat Urdu Daily’ newspaper on 12.05.2008 and on the next day i.e. on 13.05.2008, the 1st respondent gave report to the Police. After investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against A1 to A7 before the Magistrate for the above offence. A1 was employed in London, United Kingdom, as Software Engineer. A7 is stated to be a Green Card holder in United States of America. After marriage on 24.12.2007, A1 left for United Kingdom after twelve days, leaving the 1st respondent in in-law’s house at Hyderabad. It is alleged that A2 to A5 and A7 were harassing the 1st respondent with words and pointing out defects in the articles given by her parents at the time of marriage and also demanding further dowry. It is further alleged that from the date of marriage, A1 was also harassing her and that there was no consummation of marriage for twelve days after the marriage on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that A1 was harassing by phone asking the 1st respondent not to join him at United Kingdom, as she did not know cooking and also on the ground that her parents should give further gold and further dowry. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that except making general and omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations of harassment made by A7 towards the 1st respondent and that the case filed by the 1st respondent against A1 is malafide, as the report was given on the next day of publication of divorce in newspaper and that it is nothing but abuse of process of criminal law. It is contended that A7 came to India for attending marriage of A1 with the 1st respondent and left India in about a week after the marriage. The petitioners’ counsel filed a copy of Visa papers relating to A7. In a petition of this nature under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot look into defence documents based on facts. It is for the petitioner/A7 to produce the said documents during trial before the Magistrate and put forth her contentions. 3. The petitioners’ counsel placed reliance on NEELU CHOPRA Vs. BHARTI[1] and PASHAURA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB[2] of the supreme Court and contended that in the absence of specifying the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing the offence, the complaint should be held to be vague as it does not show which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by each of the accused in commission of the offence. The 1st respondent has chosen to make omnibus allegations against A2 to A5 and A7 without specifying overt acts committed by each of them against her. Therefore, for the vague and bald allegations made against A7, in my opinion, the case against A7 cannot be allowed to continue, as it would be abuse of process of criminal law. This is an indication as to how all the family members are roped in marital offences without specific allegations. Insofar as A1 is concerned, I am of the opinion that there is triable case against him and the case against A1 does not deserve to be quashed now. 4. CRIMINAL PETITION No.8691 of 2008: In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in CC.No.1185 of 2008, on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Miyapur, insofar as the petitioner/A7 is concerned. 5. CRIMINAL PETITION No.8850 of 2008: In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:11.11.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8691 of 2008 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.8850 of 2008 Dt:11.11.2011 ysk [1] 2010-SCC(CR)-1-286 [2] 2009-Scale-13-703