ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 4 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , by the petitioner/accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.708 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial, registered for the offences punishable under Section 4 98-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC ’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the D.P. Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 26.10.2020 stating that her marriage was performed with the petitioner/Accused No.1, Masanpally Maheresh, on 14.12.2018, at TTD Tirumala, according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, on demand of the petitioner and his parents, her parents provided 15 tulas of gold as dowry. After the marriage, she joined the matrimonial home at Hyderabad, where from the very first day, the petitioner, along with his parents, accused Nos.2 and 3, allegedly subjected her to cruelty, both physically and mentally, by demanding an additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. Within fifteen days of the marriage, when the petitioner was leaving for Patna for his employment, he refused to take her with him stating that she must first bring the demanded additional dowry amount and serve his parents as a maid. Upon repeated requests, she was sent to Patna on 25.03.2019, but within a week, the petitioner quarreled with her and sent her back to her in-laws’ house. 2.2. It is further stated that the in-laws continued to harass her, denying food and making continuous demands for additional dowry. Thereafter, she was again sent to her husband in May 2019, but similar harassment continued. On 05.08.2019, she returned to her parents' house at Mancherial, and on 09.08.2019, when she went back to her in-laws' house, she was again abused for not bringing dowry. Despite her parents' efforts to reason with them, the demands persisted. Subsequently, the petitioner took her to Patna on 18.08.2019 and later returned to Hyderabad on 01.10.2019. A few days thereafter, he went abroad and informed her to stay with her parents. It is stated that she suffered fits due to stress on 24.10.2019 and was treated at SVS Neuro Hospital, Kachiguda. Subsequently, the petitioner took her to Patna on 18.08.2019 and later returned to Hyderabad on 01.10.2019. A few days thereafter, he went abroad and informed her to stay with her parents. It is stated that she suffered fits due to stress on 24.10.2019 and was treated at SVS Neuro Hospital, Kachiguda. In November 2019, the petitioner is stated to have visited her and expressed his intention to divorce her on the ground that she was suffering from fits. Despite her parents’ clarifying that she was never ill before marriage, the petitioner refused to take her back. On several occasions, the petitioner and his parents harassed and drove her out of the matrimonial home demanding additional dowry. Each time, her parents tried to send her back, but she was repeatedly sent away. On 18.07.2020, the petitioner took her to her parental home at Mancherial, promising to look after her properly and to reside in Hyderabad. However, after staying with her for about twenty-five days, he left for Mumbai for an interview and did not return and his mobile phone remained switched off thereafter. When she and her parents contacted her in-laws, they disclaimed any knowledge of his whereabouts. On 02.09.2020, when she went to her in-laws’ house with her parents, they refused to open the door, compelling her to call the police. Despite police intervention, the in-laws refused to take her back. Subsequently, on 18.09.2020, she received a legal notice from the petitioner seeking mutual divorce. Basing on the complaint dated 26.10.2020, Crime No.30 of 2020 was registered under Sections 4 98-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioner and his parents and the Investigating Officer filed final report and the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial, has taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner and other accused in C.C.No.708 of 2020. Hence, the present criminal petition. 3. Heard Mrs. B. Rachna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. T. Dhanalakshmi, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner: 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case. T. Dhanalakshmi, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner: 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he was falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the charge sheet, no offence was made out against the petitioner so as to attract Section 4 98-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. She further submitted that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were living separately and the petitioner had issued a legal notice on 15.09.2020 for divorce by mutual consent. After receiving the said notice only, respondent No.2 filed the complaint with an oblique motive to harass the petitioner. She further submitted that neither the petitioner nor his parents ever harassed respondent No.2 nor demanded additional dowry. 4.2. The Investigating Officer, without properly conducting the investigation, filed the final report. On behalf of respondent No.2, no independent witnesses were examined. LWs.2 and 3 are parents, LW.4 is maternal uncle of respondent No.2, and LW.5 is only a taxi driver. The statements of LWs.2 to 5 are replicas of the statement of LW.1/respondent No.2. 4.3. She further submitted that the petitioner filed O.P.No.126 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, seeking a decree of divorce, wherein respondent No.2 was set ex parte and an ex parte decree of divorce was granted on 01.11.2021. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed applications I.A.Nos.184 and 1063 of 2023 seeking to condone the delay of 285 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and to set aside the ex parte decree dated 01.11.2021 and the said applications were allowed by the trial Court on 10.11.2024 and 03.04.2025 respectively. Aggrieved by the above said orders, the petitioner approached this Court and filed C.R.P.Nos.2498 and 2497 of 2025 and the above said revisions were dismissed by a common order dated 07.08.2025 and directed the trial Court to dispose of the O.P.No.126 of 2021 within a period of one year. In the said case, respondent No.2 is not appearing. 4.4. Aggrieved by the above said orders, the petitioner approached this Court and filed C.R.P.Nos.2498 and 2497 of 2025 and the above said revisions were dismissed by a common order dated 07.08.2025 and directed the trial Court to dispose of the O.P.No.126 of 2021 within a period of one year. In the said case, respondent No.2 is not appearing. 4.4. She also submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 have approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.218 of 2021 seeking quashing of the proceedings and the said petition was allowed on 25.06.2024. The allegations made against the petitioner and his parents/accused Nos.2 and 3 are identical. By virtue of the quashing of the proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner is also entitled to the same benefit. 4.5. She further submitted that respondent No.2 made omnibus allegations and that the ingredients of the above said offences are not attracted against the petitioner. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of the process of law. 4.6. In support of her contention, she relied upon the following judgments: 1. Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others , (2022) 6 SCC 599 2. Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2: 5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 14.12.2018 and it was the second marriage for both parties. From the date of marriage, the petitioner and his parents harassed respondent No.2 for additional dowry. There are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner to attract the offences under Section 4 98-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act. LWs.1 to 5 in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C . specifically mentioned the role of the petitioner in harassing respondent No.2 for additional dowry. 5.2. She further submitted that respondent No.2 wants to continue her matrimonial life with the petitioner. Despite several requests made by respondent No.2 and her parents, the petitioner has not changed his conduct and, on contrary filed a divorce O.P. Whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not, has to be decided after full-fledged trial. Based on the grounds which were raised by the petitioner, he is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. 6. Based on the grounds which were raised by the petitioner, he is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.2. Analysis 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is revealed that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 14.12.2018. Even according to both parties, the marriage between them was a second marriage. The record discloses that the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 15.09.2020 to respondent No.2 seeking her consent for obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent. After receiving the said legal notice, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 19.09.2020. Respondent No.2 made several allegations regarding demand for dowry on 25.03.2019, 19.05.2019, 11.03.2020, 23.05.2020 and 18.07.2020. However, neither respondent No.2 nor her parents made any complaint at any point of time regarding the alleged harassment or demand for additional dowry against the petitioner or his parents. Respondent No.2 lodged the complaint subsequent to receiving the legal notice in respect of mutual divorce. 8. The record further discloses that similar allegations were levelled against accused Nos.2 and 3, who are none other than the parents of the petitioner and they approached this Court and filed Crl.P.No.218 of 2021 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.708 of 2020 and the same was allowed on 25.06.2024. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed O.P.No.126 of 2021 for seeking grant of decree of divorce against respondent No.2, which is pending before the Family Court-cum-XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 10. In Kahkashan Kausar supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated its concern regarding the growing misuse of Section 498-A IPC . Referring to Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. , (2012) 10 SCC 741 and G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad , (2000) 3 SCC 693 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that matrimonial disputes often lead to indiscriminate roping in of family members of the husband, including those who could have otherwise mediated reconciliation. It was emphasised that courts should exercise caution and not encourage such litigation. It was emphasised that courts should exercise caution and not encourage such litigation. The Court further held that false or omnibus allegations made in matrimonial disputes, if unchecked, amount to misuse of the legal process, and that proceedings against relatives and in-laws should not be continued when no prima facie case is made out against them. 11. In Preeti Gupta supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that many complaints under Section 498-A IPC are lodged in the heat of the moment over trivial matters and sometimes from oblique motives, though the rise in genuine dowry-harassment cases remains a grave concern. The Court underscored the professional and social responsibility of the Bar to avoid endorsing exaggerated or frivolous versions of incidents, to strive for amicable resolution, and to prevent multiplication of litigation arising from a single dispute. Emphasizing the fundamental object of justice to ascertain truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court warned that matrimonial complaints often pose acute evidentiary difficulties. It advised courts to exercise great care and circumspection, especially where omnibus allegations implicate distant or rarely-present relatives, and to treat such allegations as requiring close scrutiny before permitting criminal process to proceed. 12. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar supra and Preeti Gupta supra, are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand on ground that the allegations made by respondent No.2 against the petitioner are general, vague and lacking in specific particulars regarding any act of cruelty or demand for dowry, especially the complaint was lodged subsequent to receiving legal notice from the petitioner seeking her consent for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent. Moreover, similar allegations are levelled against the petitioner’s parents have already been quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.218 of 2021, which was attained finality. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law. 13. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C . In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the process of law. 13. It is pertinent to mention that the law governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C . is well settled by the decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court illustratively catalogued categories of cases warranting quashment, such as when the allegations taken at face value do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or where continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, while cautioning that such power must be sparingly invoked to secure the ends of justice. 14. The inherent powers of Court under Section 4 82 of the Cr.P.C . be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court. When the allegations in the complaint presented by respondent No.2 to the police or the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C . are not constituting any prima facie case for the offences Sections 4 98-A and 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioners for the foregoing reasons, this Court can exercise its power, in the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ch.Bhajanlal supra. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke Section 482 of the Cr.P.C . to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C. No.708 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial. 16. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C. No.708 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mancherial, are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.