ORDER : (K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.) 1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein/A1 to A4, to quash C.C.No.376 of 2023 pending on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 312, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Petitioners are A1 to A4 in C.C.No.376 of 2023 pending on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. A charge sheet has been filed as against the petitioners herein/A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 312, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of respondent No.2 herein/de facto complainant with respondent No.1 herein/A1 performed on 06.12.2015. At the time of their marriage, parents of de facto complainant gave a sum of Rs.15.00 lakhs, 100 sovereigns of gold and two apartments, situate in Tirupati and Bangalore, to the accused apart from 30 grams of gold to A1 and household articles worth of Rs.5.00 lakhs. They both led happy marital life for six months. Subsequently, A1 harassed the de facto complainant by beating her and used to show porn videos. On 09.05.2017, de facto complainant was blessed with a male child. A1 used to spend all the earnings of de facto complainant and whenever she questions, A1 used to beat her in drunken state. A1 also used to demand the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.50.00 lakhs and when her parents expressed their inability, A1 abused de facto complainant and beat her. On knowing the same, L.W.4/ K.Chaitanya Kumar Reddy, elder brother of de facto complainant, gave a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs in the month of December, 2018. 4. It is the further allegation that subsequent to death of father-in-law of de facto complainant, A2 stayed with de facto complainant and A1 in Bangalore for about eight months and both harassed and demanded her to bring balance Rs.45.00 lakhs towards additional dowry. On that, the elder brother of de facto complainant gave a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs to A1 and on further demand, the de facto complainant bought a car in the month of September, 2020 by availing loan in her working company. On that, the elder brother of de facto complainant gave a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs to A1 and on further demand, the de facto complainant bought a car in the month of September, 2020 by availing loan in her working company. A1 with a malafide intention forced the de facto complainant to sign as surety and co-applicant for a sum of Rs.80.00 lakhs towards loan, but she refused to do so. On 12.11.2022, A1, A3 and A4 together demanded money and stated that if money is given, there would be no more quarrel. As such, the de facto complainant presented report to police on 24.11.2022 against A1 to A4 and the same is registered as a case in Crime No.88 of 2022 by Disha Women PS, Tirupati. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein/ A1 to A4 contends that an omnibus accusation has been made as against A3 and A4, and vague and bald allegations are hurled to the extent that they encouraged A1 to demand more money. Beyond that no specific act has been attributed as against A3 and A4. 6. Learned counsel strenuously contended that A2, who is the mother of A1, after death of her husband, stayed with A1 and de facto complainant for a period eight (08) months and at that juncture, A1 and A2 are alleged to have harassed the de facto complainant both mentally and physically. According to her, the alleged incident had taken place in the year 2019, thereafter, there is no as against A2 is concerned. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto complainant contends that there is an allegations as against A3 and A4 are concerned and A2 is alleged to have demanded Rs.45.00 lakhs from the de facto complainant and she along with A1 alleged to have beat her demanding her to bring additional dowry of Rs.45.00 lakhs. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant would further contend that these are disputed questions of fact and same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial and in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC, these disputes questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court and it is for the trial Court to decide the same. 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor concurred with the submissions made by respondent No.2/de facto complainant. 10. 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor concurred with the submissions made by respondent No.2/de facto complainant. 10. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record. 11. The de facto complainant has been working as Software Engineer in SAP Labs India Private Limited, White Fields, Bangalore. On 06.12.2015, the marriage of de facto complainant was performed with A1 in the presence of elders and relatives as per Hindu tradition. After their marriage, she joined the conjugal home. 12. It is alleged that A1 used to come in drunken condition and harass her by stating that he did not want to stay in the apartment which was given by her elder brother/L.W.4 and set up his family somewhere else and it is alleged that the apartment was given to some other on rent for his needs. It is further alleged that A1 grew suspicion on de facto complainant and used to torture and beat her. 13. It is the further allegation that everyday A1 used to check her e-mails and phone and thereby harassed her. On 09.05.2017 the de facto complainant was blessed with a male child viz. Vihan Reddy. Since marriage, A1 used the salary of de facto complainant, her ATM and credit card and spent money for his needs. It is further alleged that A1 and A2 harassed de facto complainant mentally and physically and beat her demanding her to bring remaining amount of Rs.45.00 lakhs and also forced her to register the flats in Tirupati and Bangalore in the name of A1. 14. It is alleged that the de facto complainant informed to her elder brother, L.W.4 about the harassment meted out to her. In the month of February, 2020, L.W.4 gave an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs to A1. Apart from that, A1 and A2 both quarrelled with de facto complainant and tortured her to buy a car, so, in the month of September, 2020, she bought a car by availing loan in her working company. In the month of September, 2020, parents of de facto complainant i.e., L.Ws 2 and 3 visited Bangalore and on 02.10.2020 when L.W.3/Konduru Gopal Reddy eating food in a silver plate, A1 pushed the plate away and threw out the de facto complainant, her child and parents from the house. As there is no other go, they came to Tirupathi to her parents house. As there is no other go, they came to Tirupathi to her parents house. After few days, A1 again harassed de facto complainant both mentally and physically for money. It is alleged that A3 and A4, who are the elder brother and uncle of A1, respectively, alleged to have instigated A1 to bring additional dowry. Unable to bear the harassment made by A1, the de facto complainant has resorted in filing the present complaint as against petitioners herein/A1 to A4 for the aforesaid offences. 15. A perusal of material available on record goes to show that except vague and bald allegations as against A3 and A4 that they instigated A1 to demand the de facto complainant for additional dowry, no specific overt-act has been attributed. Accused No.4 is a distant relative, who happened to be uncle of A1. A3 is the elder brother and it is not the case of prosecution that A3 was residing along with A1 and de facto complainant. He is married and residing elsewhere. 16. It has become common phenomenon that the de facto complainant in the fit of anger goes on implicating all the blood relatives of A1. The Courts has to be careful while separating the grain from chaff, more so, when there is no accusation as against relatives of A1. 17. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that number of cases are registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and there is alarming rise in the said offences. In a complaint filed by the wife, entire family members belonging to the husband are being roped in only with a view to settle scores as against the other family. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. 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. 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 Macie 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. /f has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged." 19. In K.Subba Rao & Others v. State of Telangana, AIR 2018 SC 4009 Hon'ble Apex Court held at paragraph Nos. 5 to 7 as thus: "5. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of' Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426). The CoU/ts 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. See bans Raj v. State of Punjab f Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935) and Kailash Chandra Agrawa/ v. Stale of U.P. f Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. Slate of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 551 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 536) 6. The counsel for second respondent submitted that certain documents belonging to the second respondent were seized from the appellants which would show their active involvement in the kidnapping of her child. The counsel for second respondent submitted that certain documents belonging to the second respondent were seized from the appellants which would show their active involvement in the kidnapping of her child. On an overall consideration of the contents of the charge-sheet, supplementary charge-sheet and the submissions made on behalf of Respondent 2, we are of the opinion that a prima facie case has not been made out against the appellants for proceeding against them under Sections 498A, 120B, 420 and 365 IPC. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, we quash the proceedings qua the appellants in Crime No. 477 of 2015, dated 20-12-2015 under Sections 498-A, 120B, 420, 365 IPC registered at Chandanagar Police Station, Cyberabad before the Court of IX, Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, Cyberabad, Commissionerate." 20. Most of the complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. There is predominant increase in matrimonial disputes in the recent days. The provisions of Section 498A IPC 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 guise of this provision. 21. In the present case on hand, insofar as A3 and A4 are concerned, except vague and bald allegations, there is no other accusation as against them. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgments that vague and bald allegations are not sufficient to prosecute the blood relatives of A1 and as the accusations made as against A3 and A4 are vague, there is no chance or scope of convicting them when the trial takes place. When such is the case, there is no point in allowing them to face the entire ordeal of trial. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is convinced and quashes the proceedings in respect of accused Nos. 3 and 4 only. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition in respect of accused Nos. 3 and 4 is Allowed. 22. Insofar as accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, as against A1, specific accusation has been made by de facto complainant, which in any circumstance this Court is not inclined to look into those aspects. Accordingly, Criminal Petition against A1 stands Dismissed. 23. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition in respect of accused Nos. 3 and 4 is Allowed. 22. Insofar as accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, as against A1, specific accusation has been made by de facto complainant, which in any circumstance this Court is not inclined to look into those aspects. Accordingly, Criminal Petition against A1 stands Dismissed. 23. Insofar as accused No.2 is concerned, there is an allegation that A2 resided along with A1 and de facto complainant, when her husband passed away in the month of December, 2018 for a period of eight (08) months in Bangalore. There is an accusation against A2 that both A1 and A2 harassed de facto complainant both mentally and physically, demanding to bring an amount of Rs.45.00 lakhs and forced her to register the flats situate in Tirupati and Bangalore in the name of A1. 24. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submits that all the allegations hurled by the de facto complainant, said to have taken place during the period 2018-2019, and thereafter, it is not the case of de facto complainant whether accused have allegedly harassed the de facto complainant. 25. Irrespective of the fact whether both accused have harassed the de facto complainant subsequently or not, but perusal of accusation contained in the charge sheet, a specific averment has been made that A2 had joined along with A1 and harassed the de facto complainant and beat her with a demand to pay an amount of Rs.45.00 lakhs. 26. Apart from it, there is specific accusation that A1 and A2 quarrelled with de facto complainant and demanded her to buy a car. In view of the specific accusations have been made in the charge sheet with regard to harassment that is meted out to the de facto complainant, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings insofar as A1 and A2 is concerned. 27. Since Accused No.2 is mother of A1, her presence before the Trial Court has been dispensed with except on those dates when the learned Magistrate feels that her presence is necessary. Insofar as A1 is concerned, all the allegations are directed against A1. 28. In view of the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Petition dismissed as against A1 and A2 and allowed as against A3 and A4. 29. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.6974 of 2023 is partly allowed. Insofar as A1 is concerned, all the allegations are directed against A1. 28. In view of the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Petition dismissed as against A1 and A2 and allowed as against A3 and A4. 29. Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.6974 of 2023 is partly allowed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.