ORDER

P. Swaroop Reddy, J.—This petition for granting anticipatory bail is filed by A3 to A7 in Cr. No. 251 of 2007 of P.S. Narsaraopet Town. Guntur District.

2. A3 is the mother; A4 is the elder sister; A5 is the brother-in-law, being the husband of A4; A6 is the younger sister and A7 is the brother-in-law, being the husband of A6 of A1, the husband of the de facto complainant.

3. According to the complainant at the time of marriage twelve cents of plot worth Rs. 6,00,000 cash of Rs. 3,00,000 gold ornaments of Rs. 1,00,000 and household articles worth Rs. 50,000,00 were given to the husband (A1) at the time of marriage which was held on 19.5.2006. One month after the marriage, at the instance of A2 to A7. A1 started harassing the complainant. A3 went to USA some time after the marriage of the complainant and before her leaving for USA, A3 subjected the complainant to harassment both, physically and mentally and A5, who is residing in USA is behind the scene in subjecting the complainant to cruelty. He used to change the minds of all the accused to subject her to harassment for money. From USA he used to speak over telephone, everyday and direct the other accused to harass the complainant, as A5 bore grudge against the complainant. At the instance of A5 all the accused abused and beat her several times for no fault of her. A1 became a puppet in the hands of other accused and finally on 30.9.2006 A1 necked her out from the matrimonial house.

4. Thus most of the allegations in the complaint are vague and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are married sisters and their husbands, who are admittedly living elsewhere and out of there A5 is living in USA. It is very difficult to believe that from USA A5 every day used to telephone and instigate the other accused to harass the complainant. As per the complaint A5 has grudge against the complainant, but it is not stated as to why A5 should have grudge against the complainant.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that A1, husband of the complainant filed a petition for divorce and a copy of the same is enclosed with this petition. As per the divorce petition, the complainant, herself, has been harassing the petitioners accused.

6. The nature of allegations referred to in the complaint, particularly against the present petitioners particularly against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5, the married daughters and their husbands, would show that in all probability, the allegations are false and exaggerated. It is very difficult to believe that the third petitioner used to harass the complainant, all the way from USA by instigating the other accused; particularly when no reasons are shown for him to have any grievance against the complainant. The reference to A5 in the complaint, might be A3 and, in fact, even that also would not make any difference.

7. In these circumstances, I hold that it is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly the petition is allowed. All the petitioners, who are A3 to A7 in Cr. No. 251 of 2007 of P.S. Narsaraopet Town, on their surrender before the Station House Officer of the said police station within ten days from today, shall be enlarged on bail, on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000,00 with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of P.S. Narsaraopet Town, Guntur District. The petitioners shall abide by the conditions laid down in Section 438, Cr.P.C.

8. Before parting with the petition, I feel it desirable to observe that there is rampant misuse of Section 498A, I.P.C. False complaints are given against kith-and-kin of the husband, including the married sisters and their husbands, unmarried sisters and brothers and married brothers and their wives. There are instances where even young children aged below ten years were also implicated in the offences of this nature. My experience, while sitting in matrimonial Bench revealed that several families are ruine