ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to C.C. No.46 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and the learned counsel for R2. 3. On the complaint lodged by Keerthana (Defacto Complainant/2nd Respondent herein), the 1st respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2015 for offences under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506(ii) IPC against Vijay Karthick (A1), Hariharan (A2), Selvi (A3), Dhanalakshmi (A4) and Ammupriya (A5) and after investigation, the Police have filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai, which was taken on file in C.C. No.46 of 2015 by the Magistrate, challenging which, Dhanalakshmi (A4) and Ammupriya (A5) are before this Court. 4. Earlier, Vijay Karthick (A1), Hariharan (A2) and Selvi (A3) filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14021 of 2015, challenging the prosecution, which was dismissed by this Court, holding that there are sufficient materials against A1 to A3 for the Trial to proceed. 5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and the learned counsel appearing for R2 strongly objected to the plea raised by the petitioners herein, by contending that there are sufficient materials as against these petitioners also. 6. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions. 7. It is seen that Dhanalakshmi (A4) is the grand mother and Ammupriya (A5) is the sister of Vijay Karthick (A1). Dhanalakshmi (A4) is aged about 75 years and Ammupriya (A5) is married to one Kumaresan and is living in Bangalore. In the final report and also in the accompanying documents, there are no serious allegations against Dhanalakshmi (A4) and Ammupriya (A5) and usual allegations of cruelty that are normally levelled against all the family members in such matrimonial cases, have been made here also. In Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2014) 3 MLJ (Crl) 353 (SC), the Supreme Court has noted these aspects with anguish. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, further prosecution of Dhanalakshmi (A4) and Ammupriya (A5) will be an abuse of process of law and therefore, the prosecution against them in C.C. No.46 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, further prosecution of Dhanalakshmi (A4) and Ammupriya (A5) will be an abuse of process of law and therefore, the prosecution against them in C.C. No.46 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Madurai is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.