IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.7070 OF 2008 & CRL.P.No.2505 OF 2009 CRL.P.No.7070 OF 2008 Between: Baggu Vimala and others …Petitioners A n d Kinjarapu Madhavilatha A n d CRL.P.No.2505 OF 2009 Between: Kinjarapu Suresh Babu …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.7070 OF 2008 & CRL.P.No.2505 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. Crl.P.No.7070 of 2009 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by petitioners/A-1 to A-4 for quashing further proceedings against them in C.C.No.932 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikakulam, which was taken cognizance based on the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. 3. Crl.P.No.2505 of 2009 is filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.3 of 2007, on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Court, Srikakulam, which was taken cognizance based on the charge sheet filed by the police in Cr.No.67 of 2006 of Srikakulam Rural Police Station. 4. In both the cases, the offence alleged is under Section 498-A IPC. Kinjarapu Madhavilatha, who is respondent, in both the petitions is the complainant and wife of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2505 of 2009. The 1st petitioner/A-1 in Crl.P.No.7070 of 2008 is the sister of complainant’s husband Suresh Babu. 2nd petitioner is the husband of the 1st petitioner. 3rd petitioner is another sister of complainant’s husband and 4th petitioner is brother-in-law. 5. According to the complainant, her marriage with Suresh Babu was performed on 10.06.1998 and at the time of marriage, cash, gold, silver and household articles were given to her husband and for four months, they lived happily and thereafter her husband, at the instigation of the other accused, harassed her mentally and physically demanding additional dowry for the purpose of improving his business and they also forced her to undergo operation in the 4th month of her pregnancy for which she refused. She alleges that thereafter the harassment intensified and she was even denied food and they did not heed to the advice of the elders also. It is further alleged by her that in 1999, she gave birth to a female child and the accused did not even go to see the baby and A-1, at the instigation of the other accused, did not allow her into the house and the intervention by the elders also proved futile. Based on the complaint given by the complainant, the police registered F.I.R.No.67 of 2006 and investigated and filed charge sheet against the husband alone. In the charge sheet, it is stated that the investigation did not disclose any incriminating material against the other accused, who are petitioners in Crl.P.No.7070 of 2008, and A-1, the husband, was alone found liable and so the names of the other accused were deleted. Though it is mentioned in the charge sheet that the other accused were instigating A-1, there has been no specific allegation against them with reference to any particular date or event showing that they have so instigated A-1 to harass the complainant. Admittedly, the other accused, who are petitioners in Crl.P.No.7070 of 2008, are living separately and away from the place of residence of A-1. In the absence of any specific allegation prima facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offence against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.7070 of 2008, continuance of further proceedings, based on a private complaint filed against them and taking cognizance in C.C.No.932 of 2008, is considered to be an abuse of process of law. On many an occasion, the Apex Court and this Court deprecated the practice of involving all the kith and kin of the husband and launching the prosecution against them without laying any foundation by way of specific allegations or attributing specific overt acts or without showing how and in what manner they have abetted the offence. As the police have not found any incriminating material against the other accused, their names were deleted and charge sheet was filed only against the husband. Thereafter, the complainant filed the private complaint and in the said complaint also only vague and omni bus allegations in general terms are made against the accused to the effect that all the accused maltreated her by taunting, nagging and harassing her by all means. Except alleging repeatedly that the other accused instigated her husband to harass her over demand for dowry and to send her out of the house, the complaint does not disclose any specific overt acts constituting such instigation or abetment as against the petitioners. Continuance of further proceedings in C.C.No.932 of 2008 against the accused therein, who are petitioners in Crl.P.No.7070 of 2008, based on such vague and omnibus allegations, is considered to be an abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered a fit case where further proceedings against them in C.C.No.932 of 2008 are liable to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and they are accordingly quashed. However, there are no valid or sufficient grounds for quashing further proceedings in C.C.No.3 of 2007 against the husband of the complainant and he shall face the trial. 6. In the result, Crl.P.No.7070 of 2008 is allowed and further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 in C.C.No.932 of 2008, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikakulam, are quashed. Crl.P.No.2505 of 2009 is dismissed and the trial in C.C.No.3 of 2007, on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Court, Srikakulam, shall go on. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st December, 2011 Lrkm