ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [in short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in S.C.No.47 of 2018 on the file of Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Ananthapuramu, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[in short ‘I.P.C.’], Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 [in short ‘D.P.Act’] and Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [in short ‘SC & ST Act’]. 2. Petitioner No.1 herein is the husband of Respondent No.1/Complainant. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of Petitioner No.1. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a. Respondent No.1/Complainant and Petitioner/Accused No.1 used to work in “Siriyam Animations” at Ramoji Film City. When Accused No.1 expressed his love towards the Complainant, she refused the same stating that she had family problems and she belongs to SC (Madiga) Community. Accused No.1 used to threaten the Complainant that he would die, if she rejects him. Finally on the assurance of Accused No.1 that he will convince his parents, Complainant informed the same to her parents. b. The parents of the Complainant after negotiations with Accused Nos.2 and 3 agreed for the marriage. Accused Nos.2 and 3 demanded Rs.10 lakhs cash, 25 tulas of gold towards dowry and they also demanded Rs.6 lakhs to perform reception function at Bangalore, for which the parents of Complainant agreed to pay Rs.4 lakhs. As per the demand of the accused, parents of the Complainant performed the marriage on 11.02.2015 at Ananthapuramu by spending an amount of Rs.4 lakhs by presenting dowry of Rs.4 lakhs. c. After marriage, both Accused No.1 and the Complainant put up their family at Hyderabad and since then Accused No.1 started harassing her without even providing food. Accused No.1 with the support of Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to demand additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs. d. At the intervention of elders, the matter was settled and the parents of the Complainant had given an amount of Rs.1.3 lakhs towards additional dowry to the accused. Being dissatisfied with the same, Accused Nos.1 to 3 continued their harassment towards the Complainant and used to abuse her by touching her caste. d. At the intervention of elders, the matter was settled and the parents of the Complainant had given an amount of Rs.1.3 lakhs towards additional dowry to the accused. Being dissatisfied with the same, Accused Nos.1 to 3 continued their harassment towards the Complainant and used to abuse her by touching her caste. When the Complainant went to her parental home on 31.12.2015 for Vadibiyyam ceremony, Accused No.1 came in drunken state, picked up quarrel with the Complainant and her parents in abusive language. e. On 10.03.2016, as Accused No.1 has got job in Mumbai, he went to Mumbai stating that he will take her after securing a house in Mumbai and had taken all the utensils and the gold ornaments presented by her parents and sold away the same. Though the Complainant tried to contact him over phone, he did not respond. Accused Nos.2 and 3 also did not allow her into their house. f. As such, she lodged a complaint with the Police which was registered as a case in Crime No.2 of 2017 of Mahila Police Station, Anantapuramu for the offences under Sections 498-A and 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SCST Act. g. After due investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCST Act and the same was numbered as S.C.No.47 of 2018 on the file of Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Ananthapuramu. 4. The said case is sought to be quashed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 on the following grounds. a. The allegations mentioned in the case do not constitute the alleged offences. b. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 never resided with the Complainant and her husband. c. Accused No.1 is the victim of the cruelty in the hands of the Complainant and on that ground he was granted divorce by an Order dated 16.04.2019 in F.C.O.P.No.2049 of 2016 by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District. The Complainant having received notice in the said O.P., did not choose to contest the same. The present criminal case is filed as a counter blast to the FCOP filed by Accused No.1. d. There are no bonafides in filing the criminal case and the same was filed with fabricated allegations to wreak vengeance against the Petitioners to harass them. The Complainant having received notice in the said O.P., did not choose to contest the same. The present criminal case is filed as a counter blast to the FCOP filed by Accused No.1. d. There are no bonafides in filing the criminal case and the same was filed with fabricated allegations to wreak vengeance against the Petitioners to harass them. Invocation of provisions of SCST Act is a clear abuse of process of law as there was nothing to suggest that the alleged offence was committed by the Petitioners. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 5. Heard Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri M.Karibasaiah, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and Ms.D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that Petitioner Nos., 2 and 3 have nothing to do with the alleged offences since it is a love marriage. It is stated that the parents used to stay at Bangalore and they are old aged persons, whereas the complainant and Accused No.1 used to reside at Hyderabad. Learned counsel further submits that, even the allegations made against Petitioner No.1 are concerned, there is no public view and no intention to humiliate the Complainant in the name of her caste. Ultimately, it is submitted that the allegations levelled against the Petitioners are omnibus and hence, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law and prayed to quash the same. 7. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in union, would submit that Respondent No.1 stayed with her in-laws when Accused No.1 got job at Mumbai. Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to support Accused No.1 to harass the Complainant. There are specific allegations against the Petitioners and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be revealed during trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 8. Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to support Accused No.1 to harass the Complainant. There are specific allegations against the Petitioners and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be revealed during trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 8. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows; Whether the case against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.47 of 2018 on the file of Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Ananthapuramu, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCST Act, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Determination by the Court 9. It is a well settled principle of law that when a prosecution is sought to be intervened by quashment, the test to be applied is to see whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence alleged or not. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings initiated in matrimonial matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court has delivered numerous decisions. It is relevant to refer to a few, at this juncture. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 held as follows: “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”. *** 22. 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”. *** 22. “Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a 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. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial” (emphasis supplied) 10. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 2324 , wherein, it was observed as follows:- “For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.” (emphasis supplied) 11. While referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the then Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Suresh Kumar Jain v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2013) 2 ALD (Cri) 700 held thus; “6. In Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, 2009 (4) JCC 3021 , the Apex Court was dealing with a case where the parents-in-law of the respondent were shown as accused for an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 114 of IPC. In Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, 2009 (4) JCC 3021 , the Apex Court was dealing with a case where the parents-in-law of the respondent were shown as accused for an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A read with Section 114 of IPC. The Apex Court held that in order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not be all and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. The Apex Court found that the allegations in the said complaint were vague, as it does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by them in the commission of crime. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court found that continuation of proceedings against the in-laws would be an abuse of process of law. 7. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 741 , the Apex Court has categorically held that “casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify in taking cognizance against them overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute”. The Apex Court also observed that if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused, especially 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 FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognizance of the case against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in “the torture of the complainant”. The said view was reiterated by the Apex Court in Chandralekha v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) I CCR 150 (SC). (emphasis supplied) 12. The said view was reiterated by the Apex Court in Chandralekha v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) I CCR 150 (SC). (emphasis supplied) 12. A perusal of the above referred judgments would indicate that the Courts have to be circumspect in dealing with the matters relating to quashment of the proceedings against the family members. More so, when sweeping and vague allegations are made and no specific act is attributed against the accused, it is pertinent to exercise the inherent jurisdiction. In the case on hand, it is alleged by the Complainant that Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 got addicted to vices and used to harass her both physically and mentally by demanding additional dowry and left her to her fate. Admittedly, the marriage between the Petitioner/ Accused No.1 and the Complainant is a love marriage. Further, there is no dispute that Petitioner/Accused No.1 obtained decree of divorce in F.C.O.P. No.2049 of 2016 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy. 13. Perusal of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses disclose that there are clear allegations made against the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 about the commission of the alleged offences against the Complainant. Truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 would be revealed during trial. When there is a material to proceed further against the Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1, it is not a fit case to entertain the quashment against him. 14. As far as Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, it is alleged that they instigated Petitioner No.1 in harassing the complainant. The statements of the independent witnesses do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences by Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3. Further, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to resident at Bangalore and the Complainant and Accused No.1 used to resident at Hyderabad. At no point of time, they all resided together. Except the omnibus allegations, there is no material to show the involvement of Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in the alleged harassment. The judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others (2022) 6 SCC 599 , Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another (2020) 10 SCC 710 , relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, would squarely applicable to the case against of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3. 15. State of Bihar & Others (2022) 6 SCC 599 , Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another (2020) 10 SCC 710 , relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, would squarely applicable to the case against of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3. 15. In view of the above discussion and the judgments referred to supra, and upon considering the facts and circumstances, in the absence of any specific role attributed to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, it would be unjust if the Accused Nos.2 and 3 are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial based on general and omnibus allegations. Since no prima facie case is made out against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, the proceedings against them can be quashed. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. The proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in S.C.No.47 of 2018 on the file of Special Court for SC & ST Cases, Ananthapuramu, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, are hereby quashed. The Criminal Petition against Petitioner/Accused No.1, is hereby dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.