JUDGMENT Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crl. Misc. No. 104/2019 registered invoking Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. M.T. Nanaiah, appearing for Sri. M.R.C. Manohar and the learned counsel Smt. R. Priyanka, appearing for the respondent. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows: Before embarking upon the consideration of the issue on its merits, I deem it appropriate to narrate the relationship between the parties. Respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner and is the complainant in the case at hand. The 1st petitioner is the husband, 2nd petitioner is mother-in-law, 3rd petitioner is father-in-law and 4th petitioner is brother-in-law of the complainant. 4. The first petitioner and the complainant get married on 30-11-2010 and it transpires that from the wedlock, the couple has a child. Differences arose between the 1st petitioner and the respondent-complainant and the relationship got strained. Several proceedings are pending between the parties. The present proceedings are initiated by the complainant by registering a complaint invoking Section 12 of the Act, alleging mental and physical harassment meted out by all the members of the family. The proceedings have gone on since then, and on registration of the said complaint, the petitioners are before this Court, in the present petition. 5. This Court having entertained the matter has granted an interim order of stay of further proceedings. Therefore, the case has not progressed thereafter. 6. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioners would submit that there are no allegations that would touch upon the ingredients of the offence punishable under the Act. The difference of opinion between the husband - petitioner No. 1 and the wife - respondent with regard to several issues is made the subject matter of the complaint. One such issue is, payment or default in payment of the EMI for an apartment which the couple had jointly purchased. All other incidents of mental harassment narrated in the complaint would not touch upon the offences punishable under the Act. 7. One such issue is, payment or default in payment of the EMI for an apartment which the couple had jointly purchased. All other incidents of mental harassment narrated in the complaint would not touch upon the offences punishable under the Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent would submit that all the petitioners have consistently harassed the respondent which would need a trial for them to come out clean. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and are therefore, not reiterated. The respondent files an application under Section 12 of the Act, alleging that the petitioners have all indulged in meting out mental and physical harassment to the complainant, which according to the complainant would become offences punishable under the Act. 10. A perusal of the complaint would not indicate any offence against petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the complainant, except stating that on a particular day, all the petitioners entered the house of the respondent and tried to take away the child for performing the Birthday of the child, without inviting the complainant and all other instances and cruel behaviour is attributed only to the husband. 11. Since the entire allegations are against the husband on several differences of opinion between the couple, the husband - petitioner No. 1 will have to come out clean in the trial. There is no warrant of interference in the proceedings against petitioner No. 1. 12. Insofar as it pertains to the other members of the family they are, petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the only allegation made is that, they have all instigated the husband to behave in a particular manner. It is only vague and omnibus allegations against other members of the family. In my considered view, petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are without reasons dragged into the proceedings in the case where the entire dispute is between the husband and the wife. Permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are the other family members would amount to abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. 2, 3 and 4 are without reasons dragged into the proceedings in the case where the entire dispute is between the husband and the wife. Permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are the other family members would amount to abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. The view of mine in this regard is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam And Others vs. State of Bihar And Others. The relevant paras 11 to 20 read as under: "11. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the Appellants and Respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed? 12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472 , has observed:- "14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement." 14. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 ), it was also observed:- "4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested." 15. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667 , it has also been observed:- "32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 33. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful." 16. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741 , it was observed:- "21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that: "there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their cases in different courts." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes." 17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452 , it was also observed that:- "6. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452 , it was also observed that:- "6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial dispute sand dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out." 18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.(Emphasis supplied) In the light of the preceding observations and the law laid down by the Apex Court, the proceedings against petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 would require to be obliterated. Since the allegations in the entire complaint revolves around the husband - petitioner No. 1, which would touch upon the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Act, it is for the husband - petitioner No. 1 to come out clean in further proceedings initiated against him. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed in part. (ii) The proceedings against petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Crl. Misc. No. 104/2019, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-III, Bengaluru, stand quashed. (iii) The proceedings against petitioner No. 1 in Crl. Misc. No. 104/2019, pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-III, Bengaluru, shall continue. (iv) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Trial Court shall not be bound or be influenced by the observations made in the course of this order, insofar it concerns further proceedings pending before it, qua petitioner No. 1. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A. No. 1/2022 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed.