ORDER : SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J. The captioned petition is filed by accused Nos.7 to 11 under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the proceedings pending in Crime No.13/2025 registered by Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru City, on the file of 39 th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (39 th A.C.J.M), Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 318(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3802/2025, wherein the proceedings were quashed insofar as accused Nos.2 to 6, who are relatives of accused No.1. Placing reliance on the said judgment, learned counsel would contend that the petitioners herein, who are also relatives of accused No.1, have been falsely implicated and that the continuation of proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law, particularly when this Court has already extended the benefit of quashment to similarly placed co-accused. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the material on record, this Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the judgment rendered by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3802/2025. In order to examine whether order passed by this Court therein would enure to the benefit of the present petitioners and whether the proceedings are liable to be quashed even against them for the offences punishable under Section 64(2)(m) and other allied offences, it would be apposite to extract the relevant portions of the said judgment. Paragraphs 4 to 9 thereof, which have a direct bearing on the controversy in issue, are extracted hereunder for ready reference: “4. Before proceeding further into the merits of the matter, this Court finds it appropriate to take note of the initial complaint lodged by respondent No.2 before the Kuvempunagara Police Station, Mysuru. The written complaint, submitted by respondent No.2/defacto complainant on 30.09.2023, bears considerable relevance to the present proceedings. The relevant extract of the said complaint is reproduced hereunder: "After my masters, I was hired into GE company and as days passed friends happened and also Guru happened, ofcourse I had unwanted attention by other guys as well which I never cared and amongst all of this Guru became a friend, a good one-a real good one. The relevant extract of the said complaint is reproduced hereunder: "After my masters, I was hired into GE company and as days passed friends happened and also Guru happened, ofcourse I had unwanted attention by other guys as well which I never cared and amongst all of this Guru became a friend, a good one-a real good one. This friendship blossomed further into being a little possessive over each other and eventually a relationship [#PrAna] where so many others (guy) tried to give mazars and sabotage this as well. But nothing worked as we loved each other and never gave up on each other. Things were great uptil we told at our homes, my mother convinced my father in a second and tadaa he became another son here in our family. He would take care of me as if I'm a delicate evening flower. Ofcourse I agree I kinda kept telling him again and again to tell about us in his place. This eventually happened and things were cool uptil he came back the next day after that when a call came late night, I remember it as I was in the parlour getting my eyebrows threaded and him waiting for me to show him my look. But what I saw broke my heart, he as there eyes all puffed, red and in a pool of tears telling "something happened to my mother, I need to leave" and left. The next day I understood his mother did not want him & me marrying. He did travel like a down to cool me and back to his mother, analysed all the gana (I think) telling we were different animals and we wouldn't match and all. But this never stopped us, we grew even more closer. Then came my birthday where he celebrated Dome Café and it was all over my Insta food (as of today which is not there). This day was the first time Guru and my father met F2F And later on few days later my father would say "see so many grooms came and she choose you", you guys are made for each other and my mom tho made his her son and father's being possessive and loving their daughter would say the same: you should take care of my daughter, live lavishly you guys earn, travel the world and all. My father always told him (yes I agree) you both are important to each other live your lives. My birthday later after few days Guru had to come home again & this bothered his parents which I never bothered much. And also few days later Guru's father came to Bangalore and saw us, we dropped him to bus, everything was cool and eventually something came up with Guru's mother when guru told "My girl is important to me" and Guru's mom was like "Guru you are not getting even 1 Re from their wealth" and all this crap and me being in my period cramps and stuff where I wanted Guru's emotional support and he wasn't available, this led to fight b/w us where aunty was happy. This fight made guru stay back & not come to office, I was pissed by his behaviour called both his parents telling this misunderstanding happened and please ask him to get ready for office. Aunty was so happy she kinda brought Guru's Doddappa into the scene where he tried convincing me to Break-up with Guru. There was a heated argument where I was depressed guru was depressed both of us at our respective places and this heated argument cooled off later when our families spoke i.e, My father-Mother and Guru's Doddapa. Guru's parents entered the chat later. There was a decision maker in Guru's life. Horoscopes were asked and aunty was quite pissed as I have WFH, MNC job and all this was still not happened to Guru. [1 have messages that I spoke to recruiters and my manager to bring him here in my workspace). There was also another issue where gold topic came up and I was told you earn you get it done & my son should get 40 grams. This shocked me to death as I thought teachers who teach would ask for dowry? My father spoke to aunty & eventually both were like I know to give to son-in-law, and aunty was like I have high capacity & stuff. After this for my Birthday he took me to Tirupathi and aunty had an issue with that as well. And I asked guru what is happening, he is like you are not satified you need money, you need luxury, you are a gold digger these were the terms he used on me after emotionally and physically being with me. After this for my Birthday he took me to Tirupathi and aunty had an issue with that as well. And I asked guru what is happening, he is like you are not satified you need money, you need luxury, you are a gold digger these were the terms he used on me after emotionally and physically being with me. His mother had come to Bangalore for some yoga at 11 PM & Guru told she is going to psychiatrist." 5. Having initially lodged a detailed written complaint with the jurisdictional police at Mysuru, respondent No.2 subsequently withdrew the said complaint on 26.12.2024. Thereafter, she proceeded to file a second complaint at Kurnool, the native place of accused No.1. This second complaint was eventually transferred to the Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru. Notably, in the subsequent complaint, respondent No.2 introduced additional allegations, including those falling under Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The relevant portion of the said complaint, which has a bearing on the present case, is extracted below: "I told that all than can be possible only after the marriage, but he told me that within a short period we are going to marry so nothing is wrong if had physical relationship forcibly against to my will and wish in spite of refusal forcibly made six with me. Like that from 25 th August, 2024 to 30 th September, 2024 several time he did sex with me physically." 6. Upon a careful examination of the first complaint which was subsequently withdrawn and the second complaint, which ultimately culminated in the registration of the FIR, this Court is of the considered view that the relationship between respondent No.2/defacto complainant and accused No.1 originated from their association as colleagues in the same company. It appears that, in the course of their professional interaction, they developed a personal relationship and intended to marry. However, for reasons not elaborated in the complaints, the marriage did not materialize. The second complaint now alleges that accused No.1 had a forceful physical relationship with respondent No.2 on the false assurance of marriage, thereby invoking the provisions of Section 64(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 7. If both complaints are read in their entirety and the allegations therein are taken at face value, it becomes evident that the gravamen of the allegations is solely against accused No.1. 7. If both complaints are read in their entirety and the allegations therein are taken at face value, it becomes evident that the gravamen of the allegations is solely against accused No.1. The role attributed to the other accused who are none other than the family members of accused No.1 and residents of Kurnool is vague, general, and devoid of any specific overt act. The petitioners appear to have been unnecessarily and maliciously dragged into the criminal proceedings. On the face of the FIR, there is no material to attract the offences punishable under Sections 64(2) and 318(2) of the BNS, 2023 or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Notably, even Section 4 of the DP Act is inapplicable in the absence of any marriage having been solemnized, and in the absence of any specific allegation that dowry was demanded or accepted by the petitioners. The complaint is silent on this aspect, and mere vague assertions cannot sustain a charge under the said provision. 8. At best, the allegations in the second complaint, if accepted as true, may constitute a personal grievance of respondent No.2 against accused No.1, centered around the alleged promise of marriage and physical relationship. Such grievance, even if presumed to be genuine, would not by itself attract the rigour of Section 64(2) of the BNS, unless the ingredients of deception from inception are clearly made out. Importantly, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, who are merely the relatives of accused No.1 and residents of Kurnool, no specific role or culpable act is attributed to them. Hence, even taking the allegations at their highest, no offence much less one under Sections 64(2), 318(2) of the BNS, or Section 4 of the DP Act is made out against the petitioners. Their implication appears to be nothing more than a means to mount pressure on accused No.1. 9. Furthermore, the materials on record indicate that respondent No.2 and accused No.1 were residing in Mysuru at the relevant time, as both were employed in the same company located in that city. The alleged cause of action appears to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Mysuru, where the parties resided and interacted. Therefore, the filing of the second complaint at Kurnool later transferred to Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru raises serious questions as to jurisdiction and intent. The alleged cause of action appears to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Mysuru, where the parties resided and interacted. Therefore, the filing of the second complaint at Kurnool later transferred to Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru raises serious questions as to jurisdiction and intent. The continuation of proceedings against the petitioners, who are permanent residents of Kurnool and have no connection to the alleged acts in Mysuru, would amount to unnecessary harassment. The petitioners would be compelled to travel across jurisdictions to defend themselves in proceedings where even a prima facie case is not made out against them. In such circumstances, when the prospect of conviction is not merely remote but virtually non-existent, this Court is of the considered opinion that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would result in a gross abuse of the process of law and miscarriage of justice. This is, therefore, a fit case where the proceedings against the petitioners deserve to be quashed.” 4. On a close and careful examination of the findings recorded by this Court in the judgment extracted supra, it becomes manifest that the second respondent/defacto complainant has indiscriminately implicated not only the principal accused but has also roped in the extended family members of accused No.1, despite the absence of any specific allegations against them. A perusal of the complaint and the charge-sheet material would clearly indicate that the gist of the accusations is directed only against accused No.1, and the role allegedly played by the present petitioners is conspicuously absent. The petitioners are admittedly distant relatives of accused No.1 and are permanent residents of Adoni, Andhra Pradesh. No overt act, specific role, or culpable conduct is attributed to any of the petitioners so as to prima facie establish their involvement in the alleged offences. 5. Even assuming that the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are not made out insofar as these petitioners are concerned. The prosecution material does not disclose any act of cruelty, demand for dowry, or instigation attributable to the petitioners. It is well-settled that vague, omnibus, and sweeping allegations against distant relatives, without any particulars, cannot form the basis for subjecting them to criminal prosecution. The prosecution material does not disclose any act of cruelty, demand for dowry, or instigation attributable to the petitioners. It is well-settled that vague, omnibus, and sweeping allegations against distant relatives, without any particulars, cannot form the basis for subjecting them to criminal prosecution. In the light of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3802/2025, whereby the proceedings were quashed against other relatives of accused No.1 on identical allegations, the present petitioners, who stand on the same footing and are similarly situated, are entitled to the benefit of parity. Permitting the prosecution to continue against the petitioners would, therefore, amount to an abuse of the process of law. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings pending in Crime No.13/2025 registered by Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru City, on the file of the learned 39th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (39th A.C.J.M.), Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.