ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.2788 of 2024 on the file of the learned IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Heard Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Jella Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record. 3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the first wife of the petitioner-accused No.1 dead due to some health issues and the petitioner-accused No.1 had a son through his first wife. Thereafter, the marriage between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 09.11.2019. It is alleged that the petitioner-accused No.1 along with the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 used to beat the respondent No.2 and harassed her both physically and mentally without providing any basic necessities. It is further alleged that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 used to support the petitioner-accused No.1. The accused No.1 forced her to take some pills for not conceiving. Based on these allegations, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and that they never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7 are the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and husbands of the sisters-in-laws of the respondent No.2, and that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 72 and 67 years, respectively. It is further submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 7 never harassed the respondent No.2, and that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner-accused No.1. The petitioners have never made any demand for dowry from the respondent No.2. There are no specific or substantive allegations against the petitioners, nor is there any medical evidence to support the prosecution’s case. The petitioners have never made any demand for dowry from the respondent No.2. There are no specific or substantive allegations against the petitioners, nor is there any medical evidence to support the prosecution’s case. It is further submitted that the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of IPC. 5. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , AIR 2025 SC 173 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India at Paragraph Nos.18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 & 32 held that: “ 18 . A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 24 . Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively. 25 . A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 28 . The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 29 . We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. 29 . We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant- husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. 31 . Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 32 . We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby, failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, which are triable issues. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, which are triable issues. The truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 7. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet reveals that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 are the aged parents and married sisters and brothers-in-law of the petitioner-accused No.1. It is alleged that the petitioner- accused No.1 had beat the respondent No.2 with the instigation of the other petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7. In Disha Kapoor v. State of Uttar Pradesh , AIR 2025 SC 2273 it was by the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph No.9 that: “ 9 . We cannot but also observe that there is no specific allegation of any physical violence except for vague statements made about the petitioner having been beaten up, in which she sustained a fracture and having been subjected to physical and mental torture. There is no evidence of a treatment undergone to substantiate the allegation; especially when the petitioner is said to have suffered a fracture.” 8. In the present case on hand, apart from the allegations of physical assault, it is also alleged that the respondent No.2 was compelled by the accused persons to consume certain pills. However, there is neither any medical evidence nor any statement from a competent medical practitioner to substantiate the said allegation. Furthermore, the charge sheet does not contain any specific details or descriptive particulars with regard to the alleged acts of harassment said to have been committed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7. 9. Upon a careful scrutiny of the averments in the charge sheet, it is evident that, in order to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 for the alleged offences, the Investigating Officer has examined a total of ten witnesses. Out of them, four witnesses are the respondent No.2 and her close relatives, who are admittedly interested witnesses; one is a marriage elder; one is a neighbour, who appears to be a hearsay witness; two are panch witnesses; and the remaining two are police officials. Significantly, no independent witness has been examined by the Investigating Officer. Out of them, four witnesses are the respondent No.2 and her close relatives, who are admittedly interested witnesses; one is a marriage elder; one is a neighbour, who appears to be a hearsay witness; two are panch witnesses; and the remaining two are police officials. Significantly, no independent witness has been examined by the Investigating Officer. Furthermore, there is no statement on record from any competent medical practitioner to establish that the respondent No.2 was subjected to physical cruelty. Such omnibus and unsubstantiated allegations, devoid of specific particulars or corroborative material, cannot form the basis for continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners–accused Nos.2 to 7. 10. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting them. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 11. Except the bald allegations, there are no substantial or specific allegations have been made against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7. The charge sheet does not attribute even a single specific instance of cruelty, harassment, or demand for dowry to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7. In the absence of any cogent material or specific allegations constituting cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry, subjecting the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 to the trial would be unjust and amount to abuse of the process of law. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above decisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 are liable to be quashed. 13. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 in C.C.No.2788 of 2024 on the file of the learned IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, are hereby quashed. 14. Insofar as the petitioner-accused No.1 is concerned, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this Order, and to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. However, the personal appearance of the petitioner-accused No.1 before the learned trial Court shall stand dispensed with, except when his presence is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition that he shall be duly represented by his learned counsel on each and every date of hearing. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.