U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. The petitioner/A.4 seeks quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 85 of 2013 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali.

2. The police Kavali I Town Police Station on the complaint of Pattan Sonia Bhani registered Crime No. 139 of 2012 under Section 498A I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act and investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet against A.1 to A.5. A.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant, A.2 and A.3 are the parents and A.4 is the married sister of A.1. Whereas A.5 is concerned, A.1 is allegedly having illegal contacts with her which is one of the main reasons for bickerings between the complainant and A.1.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that except a general and sweeping allegation against A.4, who is the married sister of A.1, that on her abetment A.1 demanded additional dowry and gold from the parents of the complainant, no specific overtacts with detailed particulars are made out in the charge-sheet. In complaint also similar type of sweeping allegations are made as if A.4 and her parents goaded A.1 to beat and torture complainant when she questioned his illegal intimacy with A.5 and except the aforesaid general allegations, no specific overtacts are attributed against petitioner/A.4. Learned counsel while denying those allegations submitted that she is a married sister and living separately and in such an instance, it would be hard to believe that she would join hands with her parents to harass de facto complainant. He thus prayed to allow the petition. He relied upon the decision reported in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2010) 7 SCC 667 and submitted that the tendency to rope in as many relatives of the husband of the complainant as possible is more in 498A cases and hence Court needs to carefully scrutinise the allegations to come to a conclusion.

5. In the light of above arguments, I perused the complaint allegations and charge-sheet contents. As can be seen, the main grievance of the complaint against A. 1 appears to be that he had illegal contacts with A.5 even prior to his marriage and it is alleged that when the complainant went to her parental home at Kavali for delivery, A.1 started living with A.5 at his house at Hyderabad by introducing her as his wife to his neighbours. Of course the complaint and charge-sheet contents also show allegations against A.2 and A.3, the parents of A.1 with whom we are not concerned now. So far as A.4 is concerned, admittedly she is the married sister of A.1. As rightly pointed out, except general and sweeping allegations that she along with her parents used to incite A.1 to torture and demand dowry from the complainant, no specific overtacts are attributed against her to appeal to the conscience of the Court to hold that petitioner/A.4 is also a partner in the unlawful harassment meted out to the complainant. When such is the case, the Court shall not allow prosecution to be continued against a non-participant accused in an offence. In Preeti Gupta's case (supra), Apex Court observed thus:

"Para 35: The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required