HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6733 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 12 (For short, ‘A-2 to A-12’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.899 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, Medak District registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-2 to A-12, the Respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : The marriage of the de-facto complainant with A-1 was performed on 25-01-1998 at Mehandi Function Hall, Lakdi-ka-pul. At the time of marriage an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- dowry in cash, two tulas of gold, household utensils and a Hero Honda Motor Cycle were given to A-1. A-2 is the father-in-law of de-facto complainant, A-3 and A-4 are the sons of A-2, A-5 and A-6 are the sisters-in-law of de-facto complainant, A-7 is the husband of A-6, A-9 is the wife of A-10, A-8 is the wife of A-12 and A- 11 is Misbahajan. After 10 days of the marriage, A-1 left for Yambu (K.S.A.) during which time the de-facto complainant lived at her in- law’s house. Later, A-1 sent a visa to her from Yambu and accordingly she went there. Both lived happily together for one year at Yambu and subsequently she became pregnant. While she was along with her husband, A-2 to A-12 used to harass her by telephone for additional dowry and also instigated A-1 in that context and thereby A-1 harassed her. Further, she returned to Hyderabad for delivery and gave birth to a male child. Thereafter, she went to Yambu and joined her husband. Subsequently, A-2 to A-12 further harassed her for additional dowry and also instigated A-1 to harass her in the same way and in the same context. In the meanwhile, she returned to Hyderabad again for her second delivery and gave birth to a female child during the year 2005. Further, 3 months thereafter she again went back to Yambu and joined with A-1. Thereafter also A-1 to A-12 harassed her for the purpose of purchasing a house in the same way and she informed about it to her mother and accordingly her mother entered into an agreement of sale in her name in respect of an house property and correspondingly housewarming ceremony was conducted on 13-05-2007. But, A-2 to A-12 did not stop their harassment for the property, thereby, her mother got registered the property in her (Mother) name and informed about it to her. Further, during April, 2008 she again went to Yambu, but within 22 days at the instigation of A-2 to A-12, A-1 harassed her for not registering the property in her (de-facto complainant) name. Thereafter, she came to India and stayed with her parents at Sangareddy. Then, A-2 to A-12 also harassed her by telephone asking her to transfer the house, which she refused. Further on 06-04-2008 she went to Yambu and stayed there for 25 days, then also A-1 subjected her to harassment. Finally, she saw an advertisement in Siasat Urdu Daily on 29-07-2008 giving two contact mobile Nos.98667 90841 of Nasrin Fatima and 9701927197 of Mohsin Fatima stating that they want a bridegroom for A-1 giving their address as House No.21- 40823/3 Petla Burj Puranapul near police head quarters Hyderabad. Hence, A-2 to A-12 including A-1 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-2 to A-12 that no specific allegations are made against them except alleging that they pestered the de-facto complainant through A-1 for additional dowry over phone. Further, according to him only omnibus allegations are there against A-1 to A-12 and therefore they cannot be taken into consideration to arrive at the question of prima-facie case for the purpose of prosecuting them for the alleged offences and therefore it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against A-2 to A-12. The learned counsel for A-2 to A-12 in support of his contentions has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra and another V. Bharti[1] and a decision of this Court reported in Shaik Kaleemullah and others V. State of A.P. and another[2]. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the de-facto complainant that there are specific allegations of harassing the de- facto complainant, which are sufficient to prosecute A-2 to A-12 apart from A-1 and unless necessary trial is conducted, their complicity cannot be decided in this case. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings against A-2 to A-12 in this case? 7 The Supreme Court in the decision first cited supra allowed similar matter observing as follows at para No.5 therein : “In order to lodge a proper complaint mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all an end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh (Husband of de-facto complainant) as the allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh the present appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.” 8. In the decision second cited supra this Court allowed a Criminal Petition observing as follows at Para Nos.4 and 5 therein : “The Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta V. State of Jharkahand (1) 2010 (3) ALT (Crl.) 99 (SC) = 2010 (6) SCJ 609 = 2010 (8) SCALE 131 took note of the fact on some unscrupulous wives putting all family members of the husband to harassment by way of giving report alleging offence under Section 498(A) IPC. The Supreme Court pointed out the role of the Courts as follows : “At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion.” The Supreme Court also pointed out the role of advocates and also need for change of legislation on this aspect. If allegations in the report given by the second respondent are scrutinized with pragmatic approach contemplated by the Supreme Court, it is evident that general and omnibus allegations are made against all the petitioners who are residents of different places and different localities including a brother who is no more even by the date of giving report by the second respondent to the police. Such indiscriminate activity on the part of the second respondent, cannot be supported by this Court. Registration of case on report of the second respondent by the police against the petitioners herein is nothing short of abuse of process of criminal law.” 9. Here also omnibus allegations are made against A-2 to A-12. It is not stated any specific instances of their harassment against her. In other words, it is not spoken any specific role played by any of them with reference to when it took place and how it took place. It is quite unnatural prima-facie the allegations that A-2 to A-12 harassed her by phone while she was living abroad along with A-1 for most of the time and also for some time while she was in India. There has been a 40 tendency to rope in all such relatives in matrimonial cases to wreck vengeance or to cause some monetary gain or to mend the other parties to accept certain terms. It appears very clearly on the face of the record that A-2 to A-12 have been falsely implicated in the case. The observations made by the Apex Court are well applicable here. Further by prosecuting A-2 to A-12 in this case no useful purpose will be served. Hence the entire proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the entire proceedings against the Petitioners/A-2 to A-12 in the Calender Case No.899 of 2008, pending on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy, Medak District. __________________​_______ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dsh Dated:29-10-2011 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6733 2008 October-29-2011 DSH [1] 2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 146 (SC) [2] 2010 (3) ALT (Crl.) 303 (A.P.)