ORDER : By way of instant petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of summoning order dated 18.09.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, in case No. 547-I/2020, titled State versus Aman Anand and others and also the consequential proceedings. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 is wife of Aman Anand, who is brother of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 submitted a complaint dated 14.07.2020 to the Chairperson Himachal Pradesh Women Welfare Board, Kullu. She alleged ill-treatment at the hands of her in-laws for dowry. The petitioner was also named in the said complaint. The complaint before Women Welfare Board was still pending; respondent No.2 submitted a written complaint to SHO Women Police Station Kullu, making allegations of harassment for dowry against her inlaws including the petitioner. On the basis of said complaint, FIR No. 15 of 2020 was registered on 18th July, 2020, under Sections 498-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code at Women Police Station, Kullu. During investigation, a supplementary statement of respondent No.2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein she again levelled allegations against the petitioner. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed, on the basis of which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu had taken the cognizance vide order dated 18.09.2020, as noticed above. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been falsely implicated in the case. Petitioner is married and has been residing in Nairobi, Kenya with her husband and children. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 has levelled allegations against petitioner which are general and vague. The omnibus allegations made against petitioner have no basis. Except for the bald allegations levelled by respondent No.2 against petitioner, no evidence has been found against her during entire investigation. The prosecution against petitioner is alleged to be motivated. 5. Respondent No.1-State has filed reply. The factual position is not denied. The reliance has been placed on the allegations made by respondent No.2 against petitioner in FIR, as also supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the prima facie involvement of the petitioner has been found on investigation of the case, therefore, the proceedings against her are lawful and no exception can be taken to the cognizance order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu. 6. Respondent No.2 has also filed her separate reply. 6. Respondent No.2 has also filed her separate reply. The cognizance order has been supported the allegation, as levelled against the petitioner in FIR and statement of respondent No.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C, have been reiterated. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 8. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Though this Curt has vast jurisdiction and powers under aforesaid provision of law, but the same has to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purposes of preventing abuse of process of law or to protect the interest of justice. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly come across the identical situations with which this Court is confronted in the instant case. The dictum of law as pronounced from time to time is that the High Court, in appropriate cases, can quash criminal proceedings under Section 498-A of IPC, where allegations are vague, general and omnibus. This has been made applicable especially in the cases where the near relatives of husband are also sought to be implicated. 10. In the land mark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 it has been observed as under:- “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC 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-A IPC is a cognizable and nonbailable 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 the provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrest.” 11. In K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “6….The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. In K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 452 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “6….The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and 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.” 12. To similar effect is the reiteration of law made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 . 13. Reverting to the facts of the case, it will be relevant to notice the material collected by investigating agency against the petitioner. In the written complaint submitted by respondent No.2 to the police it was stated as under:- “…Just after a few days into marriage my husband (Mr. Amar Anand) and his family (Mr. Vijay Kumar Anand, Mrs. Veena Anand) started making indirect references about dowry. My sister-in-law (Mrs. Isha Kapoor) who lives in Kenya, would also join husband and his parents in passing insulting comments and making references about money and the other valuables which should have been given to them during marriage as dowry, in spite of jewellery given to all four of them by my parents in marriage…..” 14. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C respondent No.1 stated as under:- “My sister-in-law Isha Kapoor lives in Kenya and visits India for 3-4 months. When out sister-inlaw visits India, she stays with her parents at Shamshi and does not visit her in-laws and she instigates my father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband against me. She abuses me and mentally tortures me. She wears my Sarees without my permission. I am fed up with my inlaws……….” 15. In addition, a reference can be found regarding petitioner in the statements of the father, mother and brother of respondent No.2 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. A perusal of such statements reveals that none of these persons have made allegations on the basis of first-hand knowledge. All of them have stated that respondent No.2 had disclosed such facts to them. Except as above, no other evidence is there against the petitioner. 16. All of them have stated that respondent No.2 had disclosed such facts to them. Except as above, no other evidence is there against the petitioner. 16. On analysis of the available facts of the case at the touchstone of above noticed exposition of law, it can be inferred clearly that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. The allegations are omnibus in nature. No specific instance with approximate date or time has been alleged against the petitioner. Only vague and general averments are there. 17. In these circumstances, it will be unjust if the petitioner is made to go through the trial of the case. It has been observed in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam (supra) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complaint’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has further been observed that a criminal trial leading to an eventually acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, therefore, such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged. 18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the case, this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal proceedings in pursuance of FIR No. 15 of 2020 against the petitioner shall be nothing else but abuse of the process of the Court. Thus to secure the ends of justice, this will be an appropriate case to quash the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner. 19. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, cognizance order dated 18.09.2020 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu and consequential criminal proceedings pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kullu in case No. 547-I/2020 titled State vs. Aman Anand Kapoor and others, as against the petitioner only, is quashed. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.