3. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused demanded for additional money of ` 70,000/-, that the petitioners necked out the second respondent from matrimonial home and that the petitioners thus committed the offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the second respondentwife. In the complaint or in the statement recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., the second respondent made allegations against A.2 to A.6 as well as against A.1, albeit the allegations are omnibus, sweeping and are vague. I am afraid that unless the allegations are fairly supported by prima facie material, the available evidence cannot be accepted to continue the case on record. 4. I may examine whether any case is made out against the petitioner. Barring for making sweeping and general allegations, the second respondent did not make any concrete allegations against the accused. The dates on which the offence was committed were not mentioned. No witnesses corroborated the second respondent, through Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements.
