- ORDER : 1. The petitioners are seeking quash of CC.No.426 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur. The petitioners are facing trial for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 498-A, 323, 506, 468 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The 1 st petitioner is the mother of accused No.1, 2 nd petitioner is the sister of accused No.1, 3 rd petitioner is the business partner of accused No.1, 4 th petitioner is the husband of 2 nd petitioner, 5 th petitioner is the friend of accused No.1. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the case alleging various offences. It is alleged that the accused No.1 married the 2 nd respondent on 15.02.2017. It is alleged that accused No.1 projected himself as studying in Germany and that his family owns properties in Bangalore and also run four P.G. Accommodations for gents at Bangalore and that they would be getting more than Rs.2,00,000/- per month as income from the said hostels. - 4. It is alleged that accused No.1 used to call up LWs.1 and 2 from mobile No.4917681462664, as if he was calling from Germany. He was using the said number belonged to his friend and falsely projected that he was calling from Germany and believing his words and projections of the accused, the father of the defacto- complainant got the complainant and the accused No.1 married by giving handsome dowry and also gifting costly items including gold ornaments. 5. It is alleged that accused No.1 took the complainant to Bangalore and kept her in the room where the 2 nd petitioner was staying or in the room where the 5 th petitioner was staying. Accused No.1 kept on demanding additional dowry and that for processing of VISA to Germany, he demanded Rs.6,00,000/- with the active support of accused Nos.2, 3 and 5. It is also stated in the complaint that on 18.06.2017 accused No.1 and LW.1 went to Germany and stayed at friend’s house of accused No.1. 6. It is also alleged that accused No.1 falsely projected his educational qualifications and mislead the family of the complainant by resorting to fraudulent activities. It is also stated in the complaint that on 18.06.2017 accused No.1 and LW.1 went to Germany and stayed at friend’s house of accused No.1. 6. It is also alleged that accused No.1 falsely projected his educational qualifications and mislead the family of the complainant by resorting to fraudulent activities. It is also alleged that accused No.1 used to physically assault the 2 nd respondent in India and also in Germany and it has come to the knowledge of the complainant and her parents that accused No.1 never studied in Germany and used the Germany number in India and also created fake documents to portray his stay in Germany. - 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that all the allegations are vague, omnibus and unconnected persons are roped in as co-accused. Friend of accused No.1, business partner of accused No.1 are also made co-accused without there being any specific allegation against them. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the omnibus allegations cannot sustain the scrutiny of law and that the 2 nd respondent had filed HMOP.No.39 of 2019 under section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act. In the said proceedings, the accused No.1 remained exparte and the Court dissolved the marriage of the accused No.1 and the 2 nd respondent vide order dated 24.06.2022. It is submitted that the 2 nd respondent cannot maintain a complaint against the petitioners after having obtained divorce. 9. It is submitted that the case against the petitioners deserves to be quashed as there are no allegations against the petitioners which can draw the penal provisions of the offences charged against the petitioners. - 10. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent submits that there are specific allegations against the petitioners relating to cheating, fabrication of documents and the accused No.1 portrayed himself as calling from Germany by using Germany number in India. 11. The accused have connived with each other and claimed that accused No.1 was studying in Germany while he was on a visitor VISA. On the fake and false projections of the accused, the LW.2 had given Rs.10,00,000/- in cash as dowry, apart from gold ornaments and other costly gifts. 12. 11. The accused have connived with each other and claimed that accused No.1 was studying in Germany while he was on a visitor VISA. On the fake and false projections of the accused, the LW.2 had given Rs.10,00,000/- in cash as dowry, apart from gold ornaments and other costly gifts. 12. The learned counsel for 2 nd respondent submits that the allegations against the petitioners would have to be tried before the trial Court and there are several questions of fact which would have to be adjudicated only after the trial is commenced. It is also submitted that the appearance of petitioners was stayed by this Court except for the dates on which they are required for the purpose of trial. Under the guise of dispensing with the appearance of the petitioners, the petitioners have been avoiding receipt of summons for proceeding with the trial. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material on record. - 14. The allegations relating to cheating and fabrication of documents are alleged against the accused apart from the allegations for demand for dowry and harassment of woman are also alleged in the complaint. 15. On examination of the complaint and the charge sheet, the involvement of petitioners 2 to 5 is not specifically made out. Allegations against the 2 nd petitioner are not only vague, but also can be considered as a passing reference to the 2 nd petitioner is made in the complaint. There are absolutely no allegations against petitioners 3 to 5. 16. The listed witnesses also do not specify the role of petitioners 2 to 5. Admittedly, after the marriage of 2 nd petitioner and the 4t petitioner, they were residing separately at Bangalore. The 5 th petitioner is a friend of accused No.1 and the only allegation against him is that the accused No.1 used to keep the 2 nd respondent in the room of 5 th petitioner. 17. In view of lack of specific allegations against petitioners 2 to 5, this Court is of the considered view that no purpose would be served in continuing the case against petitioners 2 to 5, apart from continuation of the harassment and social stigma of the pendency of the case against the petitioners 2 to 5. - 18. 17. In view of lack of specific allegations against petitioners 2 to 5, this Court is of the considered view that no purpose would be served in continuing the case against petitioners 2 to 5, apart from continuation of the harassment and social stigma of the pendency of the case against the petitioners 2 to 5. - 18. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed in - part and CC.No.426 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur is hereby quashed against petitioners 2 to 5/accused Nos.3 to 6. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. -