ORDER: J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4921 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC ’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the D.P. Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case: Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 17.03.2020 stating that her marriage was solemnized with accused no.1 on 08.11.2019 at TNR Susheela A.C. Function Hall, Kothapet, as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, as per the alleged demands of the petitioners and accused No.1, her parents gave 70 tulas of gold ornaments, furniture, and spent about Rs.45 lakhs towards the marriage expenses and presentation. After the marriage, respondent No.2 joined her matrimonial home at Gudur, where she lived with accused No.1 and his parents i.e., the petitioners herein, for a few days. Thereafter, differences arose between her and accused No.1. She stated that accused No.1 started ill-treating her, picking up quarrels on petty issues, and insisting that she should quit her employment. She further alleged that accused No.1, without any reason, abused her and her family members, expressed that he did not like her, and declared that he did not wish to have children with her. The petitioners, being the parents of accused No.1, failed to intervene and instead supported his behaviour. She further alleged that accused No.1 demanded an additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and that she had transferred an amount of Rs. 55,000/- to his account. It was also alleged that accused No.1 used to lock her inside the house, subject her to physical and mental cruelty, and restrain her from visiting her parental home. On one occasion, when her parents came to take her, accused No.1 allegedly dropped her at Lakdikapool Metro Station and sent her away, stating that he did not wish to continue the marital relationship. Despite several attempts by her parents and other elders to reconcile the differences, accused No.1 continued to ill-treat and threaten her, and the petitioners failed to restrain him or provide any support. Despite several attempts by her parents and other elders to reconcile the differences, accused No.1 continued to ill-treat and threaten her, and the petitioners failed to restrain him or provide any support. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.123 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections  498-A , 323, and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, against accused No.1 and the petitioners. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements LWs.1 to 6, collected evidence, and upon completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet on 30.06.2020 before the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.4921 of 2020 and the learned Magistrate issued summons to accused No.1 and the petitioners. 3. Heard Mr. S. Leo Raj, learned for the petitioners, Mr. B. Akash Kumar, learned counsel, representing Mrs. C. Sriharshitha, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners: 4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the present case on the ground that the petitioners are the parents of accused No.1, especially respondent No.2 and accused No.1 were living separately after their marriage. The petitioners never demanded respondent No.2 for additional dowry. The only allegation levelled against the petitioners is that accused No.1 is suffering with psychological illness and suppressing the said factum, the petitioners performed the marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2 and they supported accused No.1 when he demand additional dowry. The other allegations pertaining to physical and mental harassment for additional dowry levelled against accused No.1 only. 4.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed F.C.O.P.No.846 of 2020 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for grant of decree of divorce and the said O.P. was allowed on 19.01.2022. Similarly, accused No.1 was also filed F.C.O.P.No.306 of 2022 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and the said O.P. was also allowed on 12.09.2022 and granted decree of divorce and the same has become final. 4.3. Similarly, accused No.1 was also filed F.C.O.P.No.306 of 2022 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and the said O.P. was also allowed on 12.09.2022 and granted decree of divorce and the same has become final. 4.3. He also submitted that respondent No.2 in the complaint specifically requested the police to take steps to recover the amount of money spent on her marriage by her parents and arrange for mutual divorce with accused No.1 and she no longer to join with him. The said allegations are purely civil in nature and the ingredients for the offences levelled against the petitioners are not attracted and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. 4.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 16 SCC 666 . 5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2: 5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners regarding harassment made against respondent No.2 including demanding of additional dowry. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of the witnesses, filed the final report, wherein there is a specific role attributed against the petitioners. The ingredients for the offences under Sections 4 98-A , 323 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act are attracted against the petitioners. Whether the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint or in the charge sheet are true or not, the same have to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after full-fledged trial only. The grounds which were raised by the petitioners are disputed questions of fact and the same cannot be adjudicated in the present criminal petition, as the scope of Section 4 82 of the Cr.P.C . is very limited. Hence, the criminal petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. 5.2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgment: 1. Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355 and 2. Order in Criminal Petition No.12250 of 2024. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.2. Analysis 7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355 and 2. Order in Criminal Petition No.12250 of 2024. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made on behalf of respondent No.2. Analysis 7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with accused No.1 on 08.09.2019, subsequently, matrimonial disputes were arose between the parties. Upon perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet, there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioners about demanding of additional dowry except that they suppressed the factum of accused No.1 is suffering with psychological illness and performed marriage with respondent No.2 and they have never taken any steps to restrain accused No.1 not to harass respondent No.2 physically and mentally and not to demand additional dowry. The major allegations are levelled against accused No.1. 8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners placed the Xerox copies of the orders passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in F.C.O.P.No.846 of 2020 and 306 of 2022. Upon perusal of the above said orders, it is revealed that respondent No.2 had approached the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar and filed F.C.O.P.No.846 of 2020 against accused No.1 invoking the provisions of Sections 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of decree of divorce and the said O.P. was allowed on 19.01.2022 and granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of respondent No.1 with accused No.1 dated 08.09.2019; and accused No.1 also filed F.C.O.P.No.306 of 2022 against respondent No.2 invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and for dissolution of their marriage and for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion and the same was allowed on 12.09.2022 and granted decree of divorce dissolving their marriage. According to the parties, the above said orders/decree passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, have become final. 9. According to the parties, the above said orders/decree passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, have become final. 9. In Muskan supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order that had quashed FIR No. 35 of 2024 registered under Section 4 98-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellant-wife alleged that her husband and in-laws harassed her for dowry and demanded Rs.50 lakhs, forcing her to leave her matrimonial home. The High Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that earlier complaints did not mention two specific incidents later included in the FIR, terming them an afterthought. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court erred by assessing the credibility of allegations at the crime stage which is impermissible under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C . Reiterating principles from State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others , [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] , Neeharika Infrastructure private Limited v. State of Maharastra and others , [ (2021) 19 SCC 401 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that quashing should be exercised sparingly and only when no prima facie offence is made out. 10. In Criminal Petition No.12250 of 2024 , this Court dismissed the criminal petition filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are the parents of accused No.1 for offences under Sections 4 98-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 , 4, and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as there are triable issues and the truth or otherwise regarding the allegations levelled against the petitioners can only be decided by the trial Court after full- fledged trial. The above said order is not applicable to the present case on the ground that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners. 11. The judgment and order relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 supra may not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Muskan supra the Hon’ble Supreme Court interfered because the FIR contained specific, detailed, and consistent allegations of demand of dowry and cruelty by all accused persons, which disclosed a clear prima facie case. The High Court in that case had quashed the proceedings by prematurely at the stage of crime, assessing the truthfulness of the allegations, thereby conducting a “mini-trial” is not permitted under law. The High Court in that case had quashed the proceedings by prematurely at the stage of crime, assessing the truthfulness of the allegations, thereby conducting a “mini-trial” is not permitted under law. In contrast, in the present case, the allegations made against the petitioners, who are the parents of accused No.1 are vague, general, and devoid of any specific instances or overt acts of cruelty or demand of dowry. The complaint primarily attributes the alleged acts of harassment and abuse to accused No.1 alone. 12. In Abhishek supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in matrimonial disputes it is common for a wife to implicate not only the husband but also his relatives, often through general and omnibus allegations lacking any specific instances of cruelty. Referring to Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar , [ (2022) 6 SCC 599 ] and earlier judgments, the Court reiterated its concern regarding the misuse of Section 498-A IPC by levelling vague and sweeping accusations against in-laws without attributing concrete acts of harassment, cautioning that permitting such prosecutions to proceed would amount to an abuse of the legal process and unnecessarily subject innocent family members to the trauma of a criminal trial. The Hon’ble Supreme court also referred Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 emphasising the need for courts to carefully scrutinize complaints under Section 498-A , particularly where distant or non-resident relatives are implicated, and to approach such allegations with prudence in light of the realities of matrimonial discord. It is further observed that Abhishek supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, as the allegations made by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners who are merely the parents of accused No. 1 are broad, unspecific, and devoid of any instances demonstrating their direct involvement in the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry demand, the main accusations pertain solely to accused No. 1, and the petitioners appear to have been implicated only by virtue of their relationship with him. 13. The record further reveals that the learned Magistrate took cognizance without reflecting his satisfaction and assigning any reasons. It is trite law that there need not be a detailed order, but should reflect the Magistrate’s satisfaction while taking cognizance. 14. 13. The record further reveals that the learned Magistrate took cognizance without reflecting his satisfaction and assigning any reasons. It is trite law that there need not be a detailed order, but should reflect the Magistrate’s satisfaction while taking cognizance. 14. It is very much relevant to mention that in Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that vague, general, and omnibus allegations without specific particulars as to date, time, or overt acts attributed to each accused cannot form the basis of prosecution under Section 498A of I.P.C. The Court observed that when the complaint does not specify any distinct or identifiable role of the in-laws and merely makes sweeping allegations against them, continuation of such criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It was further held that to attract the ingredients of cruelty under Section 498A, there must be clear and specific instances of harassment or unlawful demand, and not general assertions arising merely from the existence of a matrimonial relationship and further held that criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations lacking specific material against the in-laws. 15. In the present case, the allegations of cruelty and demand of additional dowry are against accused No.1 only, whereas the petitioners, who are the parents of accused No.1, have been implicated solely on the ground that they did not restrain their son from harassing respondent No.2. Such allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any specific overt act or participation on the part of the petitioners in the alleged harassment or demand of dowry. Therefore, principles laid down in the above said judgment in Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel supra, are square applicable to the present case. 16. Furthermore, in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal , [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding principles for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C . and the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. Furthermore, in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal , [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the guiding principles for the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C . and the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court enumerated illustrative categories of cases where interference by the High Court would be justified, such as when the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are actuated by mala fides, or when the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. Applying these principles, the present case clearly falls within the ambit of the Bhajan Lal supra guidelines, as the allegations against the petitioners are vague, general, and devoid of any material particulars, and their prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 17. 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 petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.4921 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. 18. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.4921 of 2020 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, 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.