ORDER : Juvvadi Sridevi, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them in C.C.No.402 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 4 98-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 , 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Heard Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State- respondent No.1 as well as Ms. Muniganti Kanakadurga, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record. 3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 24.04.2019. Thereafter, the accused No.1 left for Australia for the purpose of employment, and after about six months, he took the respondent No.2 to Australia. Upon expiry of her visitor visa, the respondent No.2 returned to India, and thereafter, the accused No.1 did not contact her for about one year. Subsequently, in October 2021, the respondent No.2 went to Australia, where the accused No.1 allegedly subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by abusing her in filthy language, stating that he had received better marriage proposals, and by demanding additional dowry from her parents. It is further alleged that on 16.11.2022, the accused No.1 brought the respondent No.2 to India and abandoned her at Kothagudem Railway Station. Thereafter, when the respondent No.2 approached the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, they refused to speak to her. For which, the respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint, alleging offences under Section 4 98-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents of the accused No.1, who are aged about 64 and 54 years, respectively. They never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners have neither demanded dowry from the respondent No.2 nor from her parents at any point of time. It is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents of the accused No.1, who are aged about 64 and 54 years, respectively. They never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners have neither demanded dowry from the respondent No.2 nor from her parents at any point of time. It is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet. The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Section 4 98-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 6. A perusal of the entire record reveals that after the marriage in the year 2019, the accused No.1 left for Australia and subsequently, the respondent No.2 joined him there, and they lived together for some time. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused No.1 started subjecting her to physical and mental harassment by beating and abusing her. It is also evident from the record that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents of the accused No.1 and that they have been residing separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. 7. In Geddam Jhansi and another v. The State of Telangana and others , [ 2025 INSC 160 ] wherein the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 38 held that: “ 31 . Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the penal code or any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the accused and a prima facie case is made out. It applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. It applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to support the same may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. Institution of family constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations. For the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences. 32 . We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality. 33 . It goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by public at large, except perhaps by the immediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur. In fact, to deal with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. In fact, to deal with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Since, violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now criminalised entailing serious consequences on the perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner. 34 . For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on the basis of cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent to make a partner to hurl allegations of domestic violence and harassment against the other partner, would normally not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a series of acts which turns, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general allegation of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such perpetrators would not suffice, as is the case in respect of the present appellants. 35 . We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family. There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law. 36 . Our observations, however, should not be generalised to mean that relatives cannot be brought under the purview of the aforesaid penal provisions when they have actively participated in inflicting cruelty on the daughter-in-law/victim. What needs to be assessed is whether such allegations are genuine with specific criminal role assigned to such members of the family or whether it is merely a spill over and side-effect of a matrimonial discord and allegations made by an emotionally disturbed person. Each and every case of domestic violence will thus depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in each case. 38 . We have also noted that the appellants do not live with the principal accused. While the marriage took place in Pondicherry and the complainant lived with her husband and mother-in-law in Chennai, the appellants are residents of Hyderabad. As the appellants do not stay together with the complainant and her husband and mother-in-law, to make the appellants as co-accused for alleged offences committed in the matrimonial house of the complainant on the basis of very generalised allegations does not appear to be tenable.” 8. It is pertinent to note that there is no reference to any act of harassment by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 towards the respondent No.2. Significantly, there are no specific, direct, or distinct allegations in the entire charge sheet describing the manner in which the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 said to have subjected respondent No.2 to physical or mental harassment. The charge sheet lacks any detailed particulars or instances of alleged harassment attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. 9. Significantly, there are no specific, direct, or distinct allegations in the entire charge sheet describing the manner in which the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 said to have subjected respondent No.2 to physical or mental harassment. The charge sheet lacks any detailed particulars or instances of alleged harassment attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it apposite to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another, AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 wherein at Paragraph Nos.18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 & 32 it was 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 allegedharassment 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. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. 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.” 10. In the present case, as observed supra, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents of the accused No.1, and they were residing separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. In the present case, as observed supra, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents of the accused No.1, and they were residing separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. However, the charge sheet discloses that the alleged incidents of harassment happened at Australia and between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. There are no specific roles attributed to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, nor there are any direct or particular allegations made against them. 11. A perusal of the complaint discloses an allegation that the respondent No.2 was subjected to beating. However, the charge sheet being the outcome of the entire investigation, does not reveal any conclusive finding with regard to the said allegation. In Disha Kapoor v. State of Uttar Pradesh , [AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 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.” 12. In the present case on hand, there is neither any medical evidence nor any statement from a competent medical practitioner to substantiate the allegation of physical harassment alleged by the respondent No.2. Moreover, the charge sheet lacks specific details or descriptive particulars of any specific instances of harassment allegedly caused by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3. 13. Upon a careful scrutiny of the averments in the charge sheet, it is evident that, in order to substantiate the basic allegations against the accused persons for the alleged offences, the police have examined a total of eight witnesses, out of which three are the respondent No.2 and her family members, who are admittedly interested witnesses; two are caste elder and circumstantial witnesses, who are not direct witness to the incidents of alleged harassment, two are panch witnesses and one is 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. 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 generalized and sweeping allegations, unsupported by any concrete evidence or specific particulars, cannot form the basis for the criminal prosecution of the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3. 14. It is pertinent to note that vague, omnibus, and generalized allegations which are devoid of specific instances of cruelty or harassment, particularly, when unsupported by material evidence, do not satisfy the legal requirements under Sections 498-A of the IPC. Mere mentioning of the names of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, who are parents of the accused No.1 in the charge sheet, without attributing any specific overt act or role to them, is not sufficient to sustain prosecution. 15. 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 in the absence of clear, direct, and substantive allegations indicating the involvement of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, the continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be quashed. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.402 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.