JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") is filed seeking quash of proceedings in C.C.No.43 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Guntur. 2. The petitioners are A.2 to A.7 in C.C.No.43 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Guntur. 3. Heard Sri C.V.Mohana Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners; Sri Y.Jagadeeswara Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and Sri Krupachand Gogineni, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 4. The facts in issue on a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant are that she is the wife of N.Bala Bhaskara Krishna Prasad. The petitioners 1 and 2/A.2 and A.3 are the parents-in-law, petitioners 3 and 4/A.4 and A.5 are the sisters-in-law of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, petitioners 5 and 6/A.6 and A.7 are the respective husbands of 3rd and 4th petitioners. At the time of her marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant gave an amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs towards dowry. After the marriage, both the A.1 and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant resided in NVKR Towers, Brodipeta, Guntur and during their wedlock, she blessed with a daughter namely Manasvi. Approximately two months prior to the date of complaint i.e., on 24/2/2015, A.1 left the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and her daughter and residing along with his parents at Eluru. It is stated that, A.1 beat and necked her out for two or three times and harassed her to bring additional dowry for which the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 also supported and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by making illegal demands of additional dowry. On the basis of the said report, a case in Crime No.140 of 2015 was registered by the Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur Urban for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A IPC. The crime was investigated and eventually having found prima facie evidence against A.1, who is the husband of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and all the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 regarding their complicity in the commission of the said offence. The crime was investigated and eventually having found prima facie evidence against A.1, who is the husband of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and all the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 regarding their complicity in the commission of the said offence. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet in the trial Court vide C.C.No.43 of 2016 and the said case is now pending trial before the trial Court. The present petition is filed by the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 to quash the proceedings against them in the above C.C. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the charge sheet is the replica of the F.I.R. The allegations in the report and 161 Cr.P.C statement of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant are contradicting with each other. He would further submit that 161 Cr.P.C statements of independent witnesses i.e., L.Ws.5 and 6 is hearsay. No additional evidence has been collected against the petitioners during investigation. He would further submit that no specific incident dates or details of any incident have been mentioned in the complaint either by the de facto complainant or by L.Ws.5 and 6. Further, he would submit that there is absolutely no independent evidence sought to be produced except the evidence of L.Ws.5 and 6, who are the neighbours and their evidence is nothing but hearsay. He would further submit that the material produced by the prosecution prima facie would not show that the alleged offence has been committed by the petitioners and the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate. He would further submit that the family members of A.1 are roped in without any specific allegations leveled against them and that no case is made out against the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 regarding the commission of the aforesaid offence. Further, he would submit that the investigating officer has not properly investigated the case to cull out the truth or otherwise and mechanically filed the charge sheet. Therefore, he would pray for quash of the charge sheet against the petitioners/A.2 to A.7. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the criminal petition on the ground that meticulous analysis of the evidence should be done and the petitioners have to face trial to find out whether the case will be ended in conviction or acquittal. Therefore, he would pray for quash of the charge sheet against the petitioners/A.2 to A.7. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the criminal petition on the ground that meticulous analysis of the evidence should be done and the petitioners have to face trial to find out whether the case will be ended in conviction or acquittal. Further, he would submit that on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, and in the light of 161 Cr.P.C statements of the neighbouring witnesses/L.Ws.5 and 6, it is clear that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed against the petitioners and that there would be no reason for interference of this Court. He would further submit that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 regarding harassment both physically and mentally caused by them towards the 2nd respondent with illegal demand of dowry and as such, the matter requires trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the criminal petition. 7. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that, few lines from the bottom of 161 Cr.P.C statements of L.Ws.5 and 6, who are the neighbours/independent witnesses, which is corroborated with the contents of the report of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant showing the harassment both physically and mentally caused by the petitioners to the de facto complainant for illegal demand of additional dowry to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. He would further submit that there are specific allegations in the F.I.R against the petitioners. L.Ws.5 and 6, who are independent witnesses, have no enmity either with the petitioners or with the de facto complainant and their evidence is clearly attracting to constitute an offence at least under Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further he would submit that the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all the facts. He would further submit that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that there are no allegations against these petitioners with regard to the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the criminal petition. 8. He would further submit that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that there are no allegations against these petitioners with regard to the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, he would pray for dismissal of the criminal petition. 8. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the learned counsels for the petitioners and the respondents, in my considered opinion, the foremost issue, which requires determination in the instant case is whether the allegations made against the petitioners are in the nature of general omnibus and whether the same are liable to be quashed? POINT: 9. Upon perusal of the contents of the F.I.R dtd. 4/5/2015, it reveals that general allegations are leveled against the petitioners. The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 harassed her mentally, but no specific and distinct allegations are made against them. None of the petitioners have been attributed any specific role in the furtherance of general allegations made against them. 10. On perusal of the charge sheet dtd. 23/12/2015 filed for the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC and Ss. 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the husband (A.1) of the de facto complainant and petitioners/A.2 to A.7 shows that the marriage of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant took place on 24/2/2007 and during the wedlock they have blessed with a female child and in the month of February, 2015 some misunderstandings arose between the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and A.1 and he left the matrimonial home and stayed along with his parents at Eluru. Admittedly, L.Ws.5 and 6 are the neighbours. When the husband is away from the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and staying at Eluru, the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 came to the house of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and demanded additional dowry and unable to bear their torture, she lodged a report. Admittedly, no specific incident dates or details of any incident have been mentioned in the complaint, which clearly goes to show the omnibus allegations made against the petitioners/A.2 to A.7. 11. It should be noted that in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 . Admittedly, no specific incident dates or details of any incident have been mentioned in the complaint, which clearly goes to show the omnibus allegations made against the petitioners/A.2 to A.7. 11. It should be noted that in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in exercise of extraordinary power conferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India or the inherent powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration, wherein, such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guide, myriad kinds of cases wherein, such power should be exercised. The relevant guidelines read as under: "(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec. 155(2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155(2) of the Code; (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 12. As can be seen, the 1st guideline is to the effect that even if the complaint allegations are accepted to be true on their face value, if they do not constitute any offence, then the FIR can be quashed. As can be seen, the 1st guideline is to the effect that even if the complaint allegations are accepted to be true on their face value, if they do not constitute any offence, then the FIR can be quashed. On this touchstone, when the complaint allegations are perused, no specific incident dates or details of any incident have been mentioned in the complaint or even L.Ws.5 and 6, who are the neighbours and independent witnesses did not say on specific dates the petitioners came to the house of the de facto complainant and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by making illegal demands of additional dowry. The said allegations are nothing but omnibus allegations. In the exercise of this wholesome power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C, this Court is empowered to quash the proceedings by following the guidelines laid down in Bhajanlal's case (supra), if it comes to a conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. 13. In K.Subbarao and others Vs. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "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." 14. In another decision in Preeti Gupta and another Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 31. the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Sec. 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under: "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purposes of this Sec., 'cruelty' means- (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Sec. 498-A 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 is also a matter of serious concern. 37. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislature. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law." 15. In the light of the above judgments, as per the complaint, the marriage of the de facto complainant took place on 24/2/2007 and continued their marital life and blessed with a female child. As per the contents of the complaint, on 24/2/2015 the husband of the de facto complainant left the matrimonial home and stayed with his parents at Eluru. As per 161 Cr.P.C statements of L.Ws.5 and 6, one day the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 came to the house of the de facto complainant, quarreled and demanded her to bring additional dowry and subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically and left the house. But, it is not clear that whether the said incident happened either before the husband left the matrimonial home on 24/2/2015 or subsequent thereto. Except the above allegation, nothing to say anything against the petitioners. In such circumstances, the Courts should be careful in proceeding against the relatives in crimes pertaining to the matrimonial disputes. The complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant for the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC may be filed in the heat of moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations with the family members. Therefore, the relatives of the husband should not be roped on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. 16. In Kahkashan Kausar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "17. Therefore, the relatives of the husband should not be roped on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. 16. In Kahkashan Kausar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Sec. 498-A 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." 17. In Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [ (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] 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: (SCC p. 698, para 12) "12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the 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 commission of 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. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of 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 other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their 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 that matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes." 18. In the light of the above judgments, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners/A.2 to A.7, it would be unjust if the petitioners are forced to go through the tribulations of the trial i.e., on general and omnibus allegations cannot be manifest in a situation where the relatives of the de facto complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in varied instances that the criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflects severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged. 19. In the instant case, the de facto complainant with an intent to bring home the guilt of the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 lodged a complaint in a heat of moment over trivial issues without proper negotiations with the elders and developed for roping in all her in-laws and relatives making efforts to involving in the case of nature, which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution. Their implication was thus a clear abuse of the process of the Court as there were no specific allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint on a specific date of incident and details of any incident has been mentioned in the complaint or in the charge sheet and none of the witnesses more particularly, L.Ws.5 and 6 attributing any role to them on specific dates. Their implication was only meant to harass and humiliate the husband's relatives. Their implication was only meant to harass and humiliate the husband's relatives. Applying the ratio laid down in Bhajanlal's case (supra), this Court is of the view that it is a clear case which falls within one of the categories of the said case where power can be exercised under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.2 to A.7. 20. In the instant case, the record on hand does not disclose any willful conduct of the petitioners in demanding the additional dowry either prior to marriage, or during the marriage or after the marriage. Except omnibus allegations that they have demanded additional dowry and subjected her to mental cruelty, no specific incident dates or details of any incident have been mentioned in the complaint, that too, by the date of demand made by the petitioners, the husband of the de facto complainant left the matrimonial home and staying with his parents at Eluru. 21. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are omnibus and not specific as to acts of each of the accused have done in order to constitute an offence under Sec. 498-A IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Since the charge sheet is the replica of the F.I.R and the allegations in the report and 161 Cr.P.C statement of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant are contradicting with each other, the said criminal complaint filed by the 2nd respondent is frivolous and vexatious. Further, on perusal of the First Information Report, 161 Cr.P.C statements and the charge sheet, they go to show that vague and bald accusations have been made against the petitioners herein. There is a predominant increase in matrimonial disputes in the recent days. The provisions under Sec. 498-A IPC are used as a weapon rather than a shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under the guise of this provision. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of its judgments has warned the Courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws when no prima facie case is made out against them. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under the guise of this provision. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of its judgments has warned the Courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws when no prima facie case is made out against them. Therefore, considering the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to the abuse of the process of law and in order to meet the ends of justice, the case against the petitioners can be quashed. 22. Resultantly, the criminal petition is allowed and thereby the proceedings against the petitioners/A.2 to A.7 in C.C.No.43 of 2016 registered for the offence under Sec. 498-A IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and Excise Cases, Guntur, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand disposed of.