THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.7361 of 2008 ORDER This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing further proceedings against A6 to A8 in C.C.No.1656 of 2007 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Ranga reddy District. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent-State. None appeared for the first respondent. Perused the records. On a complaint given by the first respondent-de facto complainant, the Saroornagar police registered FIR in Cr.No.397 of 2007 for the offences under Section 498-A and 323 IPC against A1, who is the husband of the de fa c to complainant, and his family members. The petitioners 1 to 3 herein are A6 to A8. The first petitioner- A6 is the un-married sister and petitioners 2 and 3 - A7 and A8, are the brothers of the husband-A1. After due investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against all the accused, including the petitioners-A6 to A8 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. A perusal of the FIR and also the charge sheet would disclose that the thrust of the allegations pertaining to the alleged harassment in connection with the demand for additional dowry is against the husband-A1 and in- laws-A2 and A3. Insofar as the petitioners-A6 to A8 are concerned, there is no specific allegation made against them with reference to any particular date or event or place to the effect that they have subjected the de facto complainant to any physical and mental harassment in connection with the alleged demand for additional dowry. What all alleged against the petitioners-A6 to A8 is that they instigated their parents to harass the de facto complainant. No specific overt acts pertaining to the alleged instigation are attributed to the petitioners-A6 to A8. The allegation of alleged instigation on the part of the petitioners 6 to 8 is rather vague and omnibus in its nature and content. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court and also this Court held that based on a vague, unspecific and omnibus allegations, the prosecution of the family members and distant relations of the husband and in-laws is unwarranted and it would only amount to abuse of process of law. In the present case also, there being absolutely no specific allegations and overt acts alleged against petitioners-A6 to A8 and no specific role is attributed to them, it is considered that continuance of further proceedings against petitioners-A6 to A8 in CC No.1656 of 2007 is only abuse of process of law. A6 is stated to be resident of Orissa State, A7 is resident of Chattisgadh and A8 is a resident of Kerala State, whereas, the husband-A1 and the de facto complainant-wife were stated to be residing at Hyderabad at the relevant time of the alleged occurrence. In the circumstances, it is considered that it is a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and further proceedings against petitioners-A6 to A8 in CC No.1656 of 2007 are liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. The proceedings in respect of other accused shall however go on. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed as stated above. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J rkk Dated: 17-11-2011