ORDER : This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.1034/2015 on the file of the Court of IV JMFC, Belagavi, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. Charge-sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 7 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 149 IPC. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 in the charge-sheet. 3. Complaint is lodged by one Arathi Channagouda Hosamani against her husband and in-laws alleging physical and mental torture by them in connection with dowry etc. It is averred in the complaint that her marriage with accused No.1 was performed about 3 years prior and she was looked after properly only for about 3 to 4 months. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws started picking up quarrel with her for petty reasons, abused her physically and mentally and coerced her to bring dowry. It is further alleged that when she returned from her parental home after delivery, her brother-in-law attempted to outrage her modesty by pulling her saree and abused her etc. 4. Petitioner is the sister-in-law of the complainant. Omnibus allegations are made that the accused persons including the petitioner were giving physical and mental harassment to the complainant. In the statements of the mother and brothers of the complainant, there are no specific and distinct allegations made against the petitioner. 5. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in the absence of any specific role attributed, it would be unjust if the accused are forced to go through the tribulations of the trial i.e general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. Criminal trial leading to a eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged. 6. Further in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and others Vs. Criminal trial leading to a eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged. 6. Further in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and others Vs. State of UP and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 181 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses the specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant-wife. It is well settled that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law, particularly, in a matter arising out of matrimonial dispute. ” 7. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that in a joint memo filed before the Family Court, Belagavi in a petition filed by the complainant seeking maintenance, it is stated that the complainant and her children have been taken back by her husband with an assurance that he will look after their welfare and well being. The said case was hence disposed of as not pressed. Further, M.C.No.149/2021 filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights is also disposed of as not pressed since a memo was filed stating that with the intervention of the elderly persons, matter is settled and respondent-wife joined the company of her husband. 8. In the above facts and circumstances, criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and the same deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Entire proceedings in CC No.1034/2015 pending on the file of the Court of IV JMFC., Belagavi (arising out of Crime No.65/2015 of APMC Police Station, Belagavi) against the petitioner is quashed.