ORDER :

Crl.P.No.892 of 2015:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) to call for the entire records in C.C.No.600 of 2014 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District and to quash the same. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.5 and 6. The offences alleged against the 1st petitioner (A5) is under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and against the 2nd petitioner (A6) is under Sections 498-A and 109 of IPC.

Crl.P.No.80 of 2015:

2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) to call for the entire records in C.C.No.600 of 2014 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District and to quash the same. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Since the petitioners in both the Criminal Petitions are Accused Nos.2 to 6 in the very same Crime No.84 of 2012 and all the petitioners are seeking the same relief of quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.600/2014, both are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the record.

5. The police of W.P.S, R.R.District registered the complaint of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against all the accused. Accused No.1 is the husband of complainant, Accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents-in-law, Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the brothers of Accused No.1 and Accused No.6 is the relative of Accused Nos.1 to 5.

6. The defacto complainant filed complaint on 10.12.2012 stating that she was married to Accused No.1 four years prior to the complaint; that at the time of their marriage Rs.70,000/- cash, 6 tulas of gold and other household articles were given by her parents; and that they lived happily for one year. She also stated that Accused No.1 who worked at Dubai prior to marriage came back and was staying in the village without any work; and that Accused No.1 used to harass her physically and mentally suspecting her character. She also alleged in the complaint that petitioners herein who are her parents-in-law (A2 & A3), her brothers-in-law (A4 & A5) and also distant relative (A6) supported Accused No.1 in harassing her and unable to bear the said harassment, she filed present complaint.

7. As seen from the statements of the witnesses, during the course of recording statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C., the defacto complainant reiterated her version and stated that Accused No.1 was scorching her skin with burning cigarettes; and that though dowry was given at the time of marriage, Accused No.1 demanded additional dowry. As far as the petitioners herein are concerned, there is omnibus allegation that these petitioners have supported Accused No.1 and instigated him to beat the defacto complainant; and that these petitioners have instigated him for demanding more dowry. Except stating that these petitioners have instigated Accused No.1 to harass the defacto complainant, there are no specific allegations which are made against these petitioners. Such omnibus allegations of abetting Accused No.1 to harass the defacto complainant and also abusive words were used, would not suffice to prosecute these petitioners.

8. The Honourable Supreme Court in similar circumstances in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599 held that unless specific role is attributed to the accused it would be unjust to force the accused to go through the tribulations of a trial. General and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the