ORDER : 1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘Cr.P.C.’] has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 6, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C. No. 1718 of 2019 on the file of the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short ‘IPC’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [for short ‘D.P. Act’]. 2. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of Accused No. 1 and Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the sister and brother-in-law of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 6 is the cousin of Accused No. 1. 3. The contents of the charge sheet, in brief, are as follows: (a) Marriage of the complainant took place with Accused No. 1 on 15.05.2011. At the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry of Rs.2,25, 000/- and also presented 15 sovereigns of gold towards. Before marriage, Accused No. 1 worked at Mysore as clinical researcher and after marriage as per the orders of the company, he was shifted to Visakhapatnam. (b) Then Accused No. 1 and the complainant put the family in Visakhapatnam and led conjugal life and were blessed with a daughter. At that time, the parents of the complainant got purchased the house hold articles worth Rs.50,000/-. (c) Later, Accused No. 1 left the complainant and her daughter at the house of his parents and was alone living in Visakhapatnam, when the complainant was the third month pregnant. Accused Nos. 2 to 6 started to demand the complainant to get additional dowry and gold from her parents and harassed her daughter both mentally and physically. (d) Complainant narrated entire harassment to her parents. Further Accused Nos. 2 to 6 also demanded the complainant to register the land in the name of Accused No. 1 and sent the complainant to her parents house. (e) Complainant gave birth to another daughter but none came to see her. When enquired, the parents of the complainant came to know that Accused No. 1 is working as Jail warden in Kadapa. When the father of the complainant brought the matter to his relatives on 31.03.2017, A1 to A6 will take them after two months to lead conjugal life. When enquired, the parents of the complainant came to know that Accused No. 1 is working as Jail warden in Kadapa. When the father of the complainant brought the matter to his relatives on 31.03.2017, A1 to A6 will take them after two months to lead conjugal life. Since then they did not contact them over phone. Later Accused No. 1 contacted the complainant over phone and abused her in filthy language and threatened to kill. (f) Later the complainant came to know that Accused No. 1 developed illegal contacts with another lady in Kadapa. Basing on the report of the complainant, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk Police Station registered a case in Cr. No. 45 of 2019 under Section 498-A read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The Sub Inspector investigated into the case, filed charge sheet after completion of investigation and Court has taken cognizance for the said offences. 4. Aggrieved by the registration of the case against them, Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 6 filed the present petition on the following grounds: (a) Respondent No. 2 herein alleged baseless allegations with regard to the harassment by the Petitioners. Admittedly Petitioners are residing in their own houses and no way concerned with allegations. Hence, harassment by the Petitioners does not arise. (b) According to the complaint made by Respondent No. 2, it seems that the Petitioners herein alleged to have instigated the husband of Respondent No. 2 in indulging all the Acts of violence and all other activities, for which an offence under the penal law has been booked against the Petitioners herein and further Respondent No. 2 wanted to rope in all the family members by way of multiplicity of litigations by harassing the Petitioners herein and grossly misused the provisions of Indian Penal Provision. (c) The initiation of the proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law and it is nothing but harassment intended to be infected on the relatives of the husband and they are also no way concerned with the family affairs of Accused No. 1 and to secure the ends of justice, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 5. Heard Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 5. Heard Sri S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No. 1 and Sri T. Sreedhar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 to 6 would submit that the marriage between Respondent No. 2 and Accused No. 1 had taken place on 15.05.2011. The wife left the matrimonial home on 07.09.2013 and till 2019 no cases have been lodged. Accused No. 1 got issued a legal notice to Respondent No. 2 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In reply, Respondent No. 2 made allegations against Accused No. 1 that he had illegal intimacy with another woman and expressed her readiness to join with him, but did not join with Accused No. 1. Thereafter, Accused No. 1 filed H.M.O.P. No. 188 of 2019 seeking divorce. After receipt of notice in the divorce petition, the present case has been lodged with false and untenable allegations. Learned counsel further submits that except omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in one voice, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners for the commission of the alleged offence. The veracity of the said allegations will be revealed during trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners in C.C. No. 1718 of 2019 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole? Determination by the Court 9. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324 wherein, it was held as follows: “For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the inlaws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. In Shaik Arifa v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2022 SCC Online AP 2162 this Court held as follows: “11. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court categorically held that where the allegations in the report are vague, sweeping and general, except bald allegation that the petitioners supported A.1 to subject the defacto complainant to cruelty, there is absolutely nothing mentioned as against them and no specific act has been attributed to any of the accused. 12. Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that number of cases are registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and there is alarming rise in the said offences. In the complaint filed by the wife, entire family members belonging to the husband are being roped in only with a view to settle scores as against the other family.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. In the instant case, it is alleged in the complaint that Accused No. 1 subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry. It is further alleged that the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 also used to harass her by demanding to get the land registered in the name of Accused No. 1 and also to bring gold from her parents. They did not even provide basic needs to the Complainant when she was pregnant. However, the complaint as well as the charge sheet would reveal that there are no specific overt acts attributed against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 6. They did not even provide basic needs to the Complainant when she was pregnant. However, the complaint as well as the charge sheet would reveal that there are no specific overt acts attributed against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 6. Petitioner/Accused No. 4 being the married sister of Accused No. 1 has been residing with her husband i.e. Petitioner/Accused No. 5 and Petitioner/Accused No. 6 is the cousin of Accused No. 1 and mere allegation that they supported Accused No. 1 in harassing the de facto complainant would not be sufficient to continue the prosecution against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 6. Except bald and omnibus allegations against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 6, no prima facie case is made out against them. 12. The entire allegations are pertaining to Accused No. 1 and his parents i.e. petitioners 1 and 2/Accused Nos. 2 and 3. It is alleged that though Accused Nos.1 to 3 promised before the elders to take the de facto complainant to the matrimonial home, they did not do so and has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that there are no specific allegations against all the Petitioners, is not tenable since there are specific overt acts attributed against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the veracity of the said allegations has to be decided during the course of trial. When there is a material to proceed further against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3, it is not a fit case to entertain the quashment against them. However, as discussed above, since there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 6, the proceedings against them can be quashed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed by quashing proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 4 to 6 in C.C. No. 1718 of 2019 on the file of the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the Criminal petition against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3, is hereby dismissed. 14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.