JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. G. Sudheer, learned counsel, representing Mr. T V. Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State. Despite name of learned counsel for the respondent no.2, Mr. K. Srinivas, being printed in the cause list, nobody appeared on his behalf when the matter was taken up. 2. The petitioners, who are accused nos.3 and 5, have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of C.C. No.518 of 2012, pending on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3. Respondent no.2, who is the complainant, has alleged that she was working as Staff Nurse in Samatha (Saudi) and came in contact with accused no.1, Mohd. Idris, who was an employee in Riyadh, and the acquaintance resulted in their marriage on 15.05.2006 and further she had given Rs.4 lakhs to the accused no.1 for purchasing a house. It is alleged that she gave birth to a female child on 17.03.2007 from the wedlock but the accused no.1 left her, leading her to file the present case alleging that she had been harassed by her husband. Based on her complaint, Crime No.11 of 2010 was instituted for offence under Section 498-A R/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against seven accused persons and the Police, upon investigation, have submitted charge sheet, vide C.C. No.518 of 2012. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, upon going through the entire complaint, there is no allegation which would disclose any criminal liability on them and only because the petitioner no.2 herein is the sister of the husband of the respondent no.2/complainant, and the petitioner no.1 is her husband, they have been made accused. It was submitted that the criminal proceeding against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel submitted that identically situated accused nos.4 and 6, who are another sister and brother in-law of the husband of the respondent no.2, had moved this Court in Criminal Petition No.1430 of 2013 against the same charge sheet and, by order dated 26.04.2013, the Criminal Petition has been allowed. 5. Learned counsel submitted that identically situated accused nos.4 and 6, who are another sister and brother in-law of the husband of the respondent no.2, had moved this Court in Criminal Petition No.1430 of 2013 against the same charge sheet and, by order dated 26.04.2013, the Criminal Petition has been allowed. 5. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that though the allegation is against the petitioners being party to the harassment faced by the respondent no.2 from her husband, who is the accused no.1, but fairly conceded that the case of the petitioners stands on identical footing to that of the petitioners of Criminal Petition No.1430 of 2013. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon going through the materials on record as also the allegation made in the written complaint submitted by respondent no.2, the Court finds that no specific overt act or instance has been narrated in the complaint indicating any criminal involvement of the petitioners. Thus, the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Further, the Court would note that similarly situated accused have already been granted such relief. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Crime No.11 of 2010 and C.C. No.518 of 2012, on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, insofar as it relates to the petitioners/accused nos.3 and 5, are quashed. 8. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, also stand disposed of.