mentally and physically on the ground that his marriage with her was performed against his will and was also demanding additional dowry. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint as well as the charge sheet, which was filed basing on the complaint, the accused were booked in a case punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Except a sweeping allegation that the accused harassed the de facto complainant for additional dowry, no specific instances of harassment or any other act committed by A-6 and A-12 i.e., the petitioners in both the cases is mentioned in the complaint. Further, the said sweeping and general allegation made against A-6 and A-12 does not, in any way, constitute an offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is very easy to make a general allegation of harassing a woman for dowry. If by mere making a general allegation, a person is booked in a dowry harassment case and is made to face the trial for the said vague allegation, it is nothing but abuse of process of Court. The Court, while exercising the power in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has to carefully examine the nature of the allegation levelled against the petitioner. If the allegation is general in nature and is vague, the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the said accused. In this case, no specific allegations have been made against A-6 and A-12 attracting the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. If they are made to face trial merely because they are the brothers of A-1, it will result in undue hardship and it is nothing but abuse of process of law.
