IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6470 OF 2009 Between: Smt. Sontyana Paradesamma & 7 others ……Petitioner – Accused Nos.2 to 9 AND The State of A.P., through the Sub Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another .....Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6470 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners, accused Nos.2 to 9 respectively, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.214 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, arising out of Crime No.655 of 2007 of IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard. 3. Petitioner No.1 is mother-in-law, petitioner No.2 is unmarried sister-in-law, respectively, of the de facto complainant and the other petitioners are relatives of the husband (A-1) of the de facto complainant. 4. The allegations against all the petitioners are omnibus in nature. 5. In view of the nature of relationship between the parties and without there being any specific allegations against them, it is very difficult to believe that petitioner No.2, who is an unmarried sister-in-law of the de facto complainant aged around 20 years, and petitioner Nos.3 to 8, who are relatives of the husband of the de facto complainant and staying elsewhere, have harassed the de facto complainant, as such, the impugned proceedings can be quashed against them except petitioner No.1, who is mother-in- law of the de facto complainant. 6 . Therefore, the impugned proceedings against petitioner Nos.2 to 8 – accused Nos.3 to 9 are quashed except against petitioner No.1. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part in respect of petitioner Nos.2 to 8 alone and the same is dismissed against petitioner No.1. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 9, 2009. PV