B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure by A-1 to A-4 in CC No. 97/2000 on the file of the learned judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramannapet. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent herein filed the private complaint against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 494 of Indian Penal Code. The substratum of the accusations made in the said complaint is that the marriage with 1st respondent herein was performed on 25th May, 1994 and during their wedlock, a female child was born. At the time of the marriage, the parents of the complainant have presented Rs. 50,000/- cash, clothes and household articles to the petitioner no. 1 A-1 towards dowry. Nine months after the marriage of the complainant, it is stated that "the parents of the complainant, her husband, A-1 and her brother-in-law started demanding further additional dowry of rs. 50,000/- and a scooter from the parents of the complainant". Obviously, the expression parents of the complainant is a mistake. Perhaps, what the complainant intended to say is that the parents of her husband started demanding. . . . . . . . It is alleged that all of them have harassed her physically and mentally and attempted to kill by pouring kerosene and when the complainant brought the same to the notice of her parents, her parents came and held a panchayat before the elders and on the advice of the elders, the complainant joined the company of petitioner No. 1 on 20th March, 1996. But, again, the harassment continued by all the petitioners herein. All the petitioners herein have snatched the gold ornaments and beat the complainant and necked her out from the house on 26-3-1996. ( 3 ) IT is also alleged that "recently A-1 got married another girl by name Sujatha d/o gundla Janaiah of Ramannapet village and mandal, but, she was also deserted by A-1 now after consummation of their conjugal rights only one month. " ( 4 ) THE complaint is couched in totally indefinite and vague language. Even if all the averments and accusations made in the complaint are taken as true on its face value no case is made out against the petitioners. " ( 4 ) THE complaint is couched in totally indefinite and vague language. Even if all the averments and accusations made in the complaint are taken as true on its face value no case is made out against the petitioners. ( 5 ) BE that as it may, it is evident from the record that the 1st respondent complainant filed private complaint before the learned xxii Metropolitan Magistrate on 27-1-1996 against the very petitioners and the said complaint was forwarded to the Jubilee Hills police Station, which was registered as Crime no. 35/96 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The police having investigated the case submitted a report as mistake of fact. The complainant after filing the said complaint launched another complaint on 10-4-1996 again for the same offences punishable under sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the petitioners before the learned First Class magistrate at Ramannapet. The same was forwarded to the Valigonda Police Station for investigation and it was registered as crime No. 32/96. The police having investigated the case submitted final report dated 7-6-1996 and the same has been accepted by the learned Magistrate. ( 6 ) IN the meanwhile, the first petitioner filed O. P. No. 636/1996 on the file of the family Couri, Hyderabad for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty. Summons were served on the first respondent on 6-9-1996. Once again, the first respondent filed a complaint on 11-9-1996 before the Women Protection Cell against the petitioners and other members with the same old story and the said case was registered again under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC as Crime No. 283/96. The police having investigated the case filed charge-sheet against the 1st petitioner herein and same is taken on file by the learned XXII metropolitan Magistrate in CC No. 49/98 and the same is pending enquiry and trial. ( 7 ) THE first respondent once again filed private complaint before the Judicial First class Magistrate, Ramannapet under sections 323 and 504 IPC on 2-6-1997 and the same has been referred to Valigonda Police station for investigation. The police after investigating the case found the same to be false and submitted the final report and the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, ramannapet, accepted the same in september, 1997. ( 8 ) THE facts speak for themselves. The police after investigating the case found the same to be false and submitted the final report and the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, ramannapet, accepted the same in september, 1997. ( 8 ) THE facts speak for themselves. Undoubtedly, the petitioners herein are subjected to untold misery and harassment by the 1st respondent. In this case, she appears to be taken undue advantage of the benevolent provisions incorporated in the indian Penal Code. She went on filing complaint after complaint against the 1st petitioner and the members of his family under Section 498-A IPC and 406 IPC repeating the very self same allegations in every complaint and the First Information report. Excepting one case which is subject matter of CC No. 49/98, all other complaints were found to be false. Even CC No. 49/98 is taken on file only against the first petitioner. ( 9 ) EVIDENTLY, the complaint in CC no. 97/2000 is a vexatious one and accusations do not inspire any confidence. The 1st respondent for the sake of some change appears to have added one paragraph accusing the 1st petitioner as having married another girl by name Sujatha. No details are mentioned as to when the petitioner married said Sujatha d/o. Gundla Janaiah. Such vague and indefinite allegations do not give rise any cause of action. It is clearly an attempt on the part of the 1st respondent to abuse the legal process. The process set in motion has ultimately resulted in manifest injustice to the petitioners. It is evidently a fit case for interference by this court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The petition is allowed.