ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 5 (for short, A-1 to A-5') under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.8 of 2010 of Nagarkurnool P.s., Mahaboobnagar District, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool, registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-1 to A-5, the Respondent No. 2 is the de facto complainant in the crime. For the sake of convenience, I fresh the parties as arrayed in the crime. 3. Initially, A-1 to A-5 approached the parents of the de facto complainant in the year 2003 proposing the de facto complainant to A-1 in marriage. Then they demanded her parents to payor give Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash towards dowry, Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of fully automatic washing machine, Samsung Refrigerator, complete bed set with rubberized coir mattress, steel almyra etc., and 8 totals of gold in the shape of ornaments along with some customary silver ornaments, in addition to which, they also demanded the parents of the de facto complainant to provide dinner for their relatives, friends and guests on the day of marriage with a threat to cancel the marriage unless the demands were met with, whereby the parents of the de facto complainant having no other option agreed for the demands. Accordingly, the marriage of the de facto complainant with A-1 was performed on 20-7-2003 at Nagarkurnool as per Mohammedan Law, and the parents of de facto complainant complied with all the demands of A-1 to A-5. It is further alleged that after the marriage, A-1 put the de facto complainant to mental torture at the instigation of A-2 to A-4. They used to verbally abuse the de facto complainant which she tolerated with a fond hope that A-1 would mend his ways and treat her well and giving her due place as his wife, but the harassment continued. They used to verbally abuse the de facto complainant which she tolerated with a fond hope that A-1 would mend his ways and treat her well and giving her due place as his wife, but the harassment continued. Further, the de facto complainant became pregnant later and then also she cultivated hope that A-1 would mend his ways once the child was born, but during her pregnancy also she was subjected to harassment and cruelty by A-1 to A-5 by way of not providing sufficient food to her and always insisting her to bring handsome amount towards dowry from her parents or to commit suicide. It is further alleged that the de facto complainant gave birth to a male child on 27-9-2004 but her parents bore necessary expenses for the delivery while A-1 did not spend even single paisa for that. On the other hand, A-1 came to Hyderabad to have a look of the son and demanded the de facto complainant to fetch dowry amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- from her parents, but when the de facto complainant expressed the inability of her parents to meet their demands, A-1 at the instigation of A-2 and A-3, tortured her mentally and also beat her. Further, the de facto complainant became pregnant again during which also she was subjected to same harassment in the hands of A-1 to A-5, which she could not bear as a result of which she became mentally disturbed and depressed person. Further, in that condition, A-1 to A-5 in the month of October, 2008 left the de facto complainant and her child at her parents house without giving any treatment. Ultimately, she filed complaint before the Court below which was forwarded to the police who registered the case in Crime No. 8/2010. hence, A-1 to A-5 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/ A-1 to A-5 would contend that there are only bald allegations, in other words there are no specific allegations against A-1 to A-5. hence, A-1 to A-5 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/ A-1 to A-5 would contend that there are only bald allegations, in other words there are no specific allegations against A-1 to A-5. In fact, A-1 got married the de facto complainant and in turn, the sister of A-1 got married to the brother of the de facto complainant but after the marriage the brother of the de facto complainant used to harass the sister of A-1 who thereby filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws, but as a counter blast, the de facto complainant herein filed the complaint in this case. The further contention of the learned counsel for A-1 to A-5 is that on 18-3-2009 A-1 pronounced irrevocable Talaq by following the prescribed procedure as per the Muslim rites and customs and on the same day he got issued a legal notice through his counsel to the de facto complainant to take back all the jehaj articles. Further, the de facto complainant filed M.C.No. 32/2009 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which provision is meant for filing of maintenance cases by a divorced woman, which reflects that the de facto complainant had admitted the divorce, though she claimed in the maintenance case that A-1 pronounced irrevocable divorce on 18-3-2009 without following due process of law. The allegations made in the complaint are pertaining to the period prior to 2009 but the complaint was filed on 29-7-2009 i.e., subsequent to the divorce, which took place on 18-3-2009. He has placed reliance upon the decision in M. Saravalla Porselvi v. A.R. Chandrashekar (1) (2008) 11 SCC 520 in this context while affirming that filing of the complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law. 5. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant and also learned Additional Public Prosecutor have contended that there is prima facie case to prosecute A-1 to A-5 for the alleged offences to entertain the petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the impugned proceedings against A-1 to A-5. 7. Point: In fact, only bald allegations are made against A-1 to A-5. 6. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the impugned proceedings against A-1 to A-5. 7. Point: In fact, only bald allegations are made against A-1 to A-5. It is needless to say that in the cases of this nature, relatives of husband are being roped in for the purpose of harassing all of them with a view to achieve some object. Further, the complaint was filed on 29-7-2009 i.e., subsequent to obtaining the alleged irrevocable divorce by A-1 on 18-3-2009. In fact, it is admitted in the maintenance case by the de facto complainant that the irrevocable divorce was pronounced but without following due process of law. When the de facto complainant filed the maintenance case as a diversee, it implies that she has been admitting that A-1 obtained irrevocable divorce against her. In M. Saravana Porselvi v. A.R. Challdrashekar (1 supra) the Supreme Court, under similar circumstances, held as under: "12. The customary divorce may be legal or illegal. The fact that such an agreement had been entered into or the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 25,000/- by way of permanent alimony, however, stands admitted. The document is a registered one. The appellant being in the legal profession must be held to be aware of the legal implication thereof. If the contents of the said agreement are taken to be correct, indisputably the parties had been living separately for more than ten years. However then a case under Section 498-A of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out and that too at such a distant point of time is the question, particularly in view of the bar of limitation as contained in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even otherwise it is unbelievable that the appellant was really harassed by her husband or her in laws." 8. In the circumstances of the case, it is amply clear that the complaint was filed on 29-7-2009 after divorce with a view to achieve some object against A-1 to A-5. The observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision are well applicable here. Nobody should be charged or enquired into unnecessarily in any proceeding. If it is done, it is nothing but abuse of process of law. The observations made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision are well applicable here. Nobody should be charged or enquired into unnecessarily in any proceeding. If it is done, it is nothing but abuse of process of law. By virtue of Section 482 CrP.C. if there is any abuse of process of law, the proceedings can be quashed. Continuation of proceedings 'against A-1 to A-5 would serve no purpose. The proceedings would curtail the life and liberty of A-1 to A-5. Hence the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against A-2 to A-5 pending on the file Nagarkurnool P.S/the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool.