ORDER : Juvvadi Sridevi, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.221 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 354 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Heard Mr. C.Sunil Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. Though the notice was served on respondent No.2, she did not appear either in person or through counsel. Perused the material on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-accused No.1 is the mother-in-law, and the petitioner-accused No.2 is the brother-in-law of the respondent No.2. According to the complaint, the allegations against the petitioners are that the marriage between the respondent No.2 and her husband was a love-cum-arranged marriage, which was performed on 20.11.2017. After the marriage, they stayed in the in-laws’ house. It is alleged that the petitioners and others were not satisfied with the work of the respondent No.2 and started harassing her on petty issues and also used to demand additional dowry. It is further alleged that when the husband of the respondent No.2 was away at work, the petitioner-accused No.2 used to approach her, abuse her in filthy language, and torture her severely, stating that if she slept with him, he would bless her with a baby boy since he had two sons. He also allegedly stated that her husband never satisfied her. When the respondent No.2 informed the wife of the accused No.2 about his behaviour, instead of supporting her, the wife blamed the respondent No.2 and supported her husband. It is also alleged that the petitioners forced the respondent No.2 to undergo an abortion and sent her to her parents’ house with a demand to bring gold and additional dowry. Due to the unbearable harassment by the petitioners, the respondent No.2 and her husband have been living separately from the petitioners for the past two years. Even thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 continued to demand additional amounts. Hence, the present complaint. 4. Due to the unbearable harassment by the petitioners, the respondent No.2 and her husband have been living separately from the petitioners for the past two years. Even thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 continued to demand additional amounts. Hence, the present complaint. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case by the respondent No.2, in collusion with her husband, only to wreak vengeance on account of property disputes. He further contended that, on a plain reading of the complaint as well as the charge sheet, no case is made out for the alleged offences against the petitioners. He further contended that the complaint of the respondent No.2 itself reveals that, for more than two years, she has not been residing with the petitioners, and that the respondent No.2 has purposefully omitted the name of her husband, as both were acting in collusion to demand a share in the property belonging to petitioner-accused No.1. He further contended that the respondent No.2 is adamant in nature and was very aggressive towards the joint family, and that she provoked her husband to demand partition of the property and live separately. However, the petitioner No.1 was not agreeable to such a proposal. He also submitted that there is an agreement dated 12.09.2021 between the parties. He further contended that the husband of the respondent No.2 was unemployed and dependent on the petitioners for a long time, and that he was also addicted to alcohol and other narcotics. He further contended that though the petitioners have been living separately, the husband of the respondent No.2 created nuisance on several occasions and assaulted the petitioners in the presence of panchayat members. He further submitted that on the very next day of the said panchayat, the husband of the respondent No.2 submitted an apology letter to the panchayat members and his family for his misconduct and requested to reconvene the panchayat to decide upon his father’s property for partition among the petitioners and himself. He further contended that merely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, the petitioners have been roped into the case and shown as accused Nos.1 and 2. Except for bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Hence, he prayed that the proceedings against the petitioners be quashed. 5. He further contended that merely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, the petitioners have been roped into the case and shown as accused Nos.1 and 2. Except for bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners. Hence, he prayed that the proceedings against the petitioners be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the accused, including the petitioners herein, have harassed the respondent No.2 after her marriage with her husband and being unable to bear the same, the present complaint has been lodged. It is further contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. For better adjudication of the case, Section 498-A of IPC is also extracted hereunder: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—(a)any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or(b)harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 7. In the Judgment of State of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and others , 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. In the Judgment of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , 2024 INSC 953 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at paragraph Nos.18, 25, 31 and 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. 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. 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. 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 . 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.” 9. In numerous cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with similar cases held that 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 the husband and his family members. 10. In the present case, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are the mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the respondent No.2. The allegation is that the petitioner-accused No.2 had misbehaved with the respondent No.2 and that the petitioner-accused No.1, who is the mother, had supported him. A perusal of the record discloses that there were property disputes between the husband of the respondent No.2 and the accused No.2 in respect of their father’s property, and an agreement dated 12.09.2021 was executed in relation to the said disputes. The present complaint was lodged on 05.03.2022. It is relevant to note that on 18.04.2022, the husband of the respondent No.2 admitted his misbehavior towards the family members and panchayath elders and tendered an apology to his family members and panchayat elders through a written apology letter. 11. The present complaint was lodged on 05.03.2022. It is relevant to note that on 18.04.2022, the husband of the respondent No.2 admitted his misbehavior towards the family members and panchayath elders and tendered an apology to his family members and panchayat elders through a written apology letter. 11. As evident from the averments in the charge sheet, the respondent No.2 and her husband had been residing separately from the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 for the preceding two years. Notably, the complaint does not mention any specific dates or times of the alleged acts of harassment by the petitioners. It is also pertinent that certain individuals who were initially arrayed as accused were later deleted from the array after completion of investigation. 12. Further, in his statement, the husband of respondent No.2 initially stated that their marriage was a love marriage and that they resided in his in-laws’ house, however, towards the end of the statement, he claimed that they were residing separately in a rented house. This inconsistency in his statement, coupled with the subsisting property disputes at the time of lodging the present complaint and the absence of specific particulars regarding the alleged incidents, casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case. Therefore, it appears that the present complaint has been maliciously instituted by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and to spite them due to personal grudge arising out of the said property disputes, in collusion with her husband. 13. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be put to the ordeal of trial and the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.221 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.