“ 7. In respect of the petitioners 2 to 4 (the other accused) I find every justification in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the private complaint would go to show that there is an omnibus allegation in paragraph 3 of the complaint, stating that these accused also scolded the wife of the complaint in abrasive language, thereby humiliated her. Except this omnibus allegation there is no other specific overt act stated against these accused. Apart from that a perusal of the complaint dated 21.06.2005 given to the police immediately after the occurrence, would show that not even the presence of these accused at the time of occurrence has been mentioned. The entire complaint dated 21.06.2005 would go to show that it was only the first accused, who indulged in the commission of crime. As I have stated there is nothing stated about the petitioners 2 to 4 in the complaint dated 21.06.2005. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as against the second petitioner – Ragukumar, there are certain allegations made in the complaint dated 21.06.2005. A perusal of the same would go to show that it does not speak about the presence of the Ragukumar on the spot. It says that there was some telephonic call made some time before by the second accused to Alameluammal, who was the owner of the house. That will not be sufficient to sustain the complaint. Thus I am of the view that in the absence of any allegation made against the petitioners 2 to 4 in the earliest complaint given on 21.06.2005, the private complaint made on 28.08.2006 implicating these petitioners also cannot be sustained. In such view of the matter, I am inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners 2 to 4 alone.
