ORDER:

The present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/

accused Nos.4 and 5 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.408 of 2018 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mailavaram.

2. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant lodged a report before the police alleging that she was subjected to cruelty and accused have demanded additional dowry apart from the dowry that was received at the time of marriage and she has been ill- treated by the respondents. Basing upon the report lodged by the 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant, the police have investigated the case and forwarded the charge sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the same was registered as C.C.No.408 of 2018, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mailavaram, under Sections 498-A, 420, 406 and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short “D.P.Act”).

3. The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5, in C.C.No.408 of 2018 and they are the sister and brother-in- laws of the accused No.1, respectively. Accused No.1 is the husband of the defacto complainant. The allegations against the petitioners are that, the petitioners have directed the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant to sell the land and to bring additional dowry, except this allegation, no other allegations were made against the petitioners herein.

4. Now, the present criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.408 of 2018 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mailavaram, on the ground that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners herein, which constitutes the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 406 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and the petitioners herein are residing away from the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant and accused No.1 and they are roped in the present case and the allegation is trivial, omnibus and innocuous. They have nothing to do with any of the alleged act committed by the accused No.1. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners would urge to quash the proceedings.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, Kahkashan

1 LAWS(SC)-2012-10-53

Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar2 and K.Subba Rao v.

State of Telangana3.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents refuted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there are specific allegations in the complaint against the petitioners and also contended that whether the said allegations would amounts to harassment or not is a disputed fact, which has to be decided during the course of trial and this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction at the threshold to quash the proceedings. Therefore, he urged to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. As seen from the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically observed that bald and omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of process of law and directed the Courts not to proceed against the relatives & in-laws of husband, when no prima facie case is made out against them.

8. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant has filed a copy of the DVC. Either in the complaint or in the DVC case no specific

2 LAWS(SC)-2022-2-27 3 LAWS(SC)-2018-8-48

allegations were made against the petitioners about cruelty and demand of dowry, which was meted out by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. Only a general and omnibus allegation mentioned in the report i.e., “to get additional dowry by selling the property”, except that statement no other accusation was made against the petitioners. The statement is bald statement, which does not attract the ingredients of Sections 498-A, 420, 406 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and Sections 3 an