ORDER : 1. These Criminal Petitions i.e. Criminal Petition No.2156 of 2024 filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and Criminal Petition No.2813 of 2025 filed by the petitioner- accused No.4, seeking to quash criminal proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.378 of 2016 and C.C.No.1394 of 2023 respectively, pending on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) arising out of the same crime vide FIR No.208 of 2016. The offences alleged against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are under Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 506, 379 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Since the parties, allegations, and issues involved are common, both the Criminal Petitions are disposed of by way of this common order. 3. Heard Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4; Sri G.Ashok Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 in CRL.P.No.2813 of 2025 and representing Ms. Y.Ratna Prabha, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 in CRL.P.No.2156 of 2024 as well as Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record. 4. (a) In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the complainant-respondent No.2/LW1 was performed with the accused No.1 on 30.12.2011 at Imperial Garden, Secunderabad, according to Christian rites and customs. It was an arranged marriage. The accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly demanded 100 tolas of gold jewellery, landed properties worth Rs.15 crore, and that the marriage be performed in a grand manner. On such demand of the accused Nos.1 to 4, the parents of the respondent No.2 provided 100 tolas of gold and diamond jewellery, and registered landed properties (i) Ac.17-00 guntas at Sadasivpet, Medak District, (ii) 666 sq. yards of land opposite Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad worth about Rs.15 crore, in the name of the respondent No.2. Her father incurred Rs.8 lakh on the engagement ceremony and further substantial expenditure for the marriage. On the date of marriage, the respondent No.2 also received jewellery from relatives and friends as gifts. yards of land opposite Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad worth about Rs.15 crore, in the name of the respondent No.2. Her father incurred Rs.8 lakh on the engagement ceremony and further substantial expenditure for the marriage. On the date of marriage, the respondent No.2 also received jewellery from relatives and friends as gifts. At the time of marriage, her parents additionally gave Rs.2 lakh to the accused No.4 towards “Adapaducham Katnam.” (b) It is further alleged that after marriage, the respondent No.2 stayed with the accused No.1 and his family at Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, where she was allegedly subjected to harassment within a few days on the ground that the dowry given was inadequate. She was compared with others and subjected to sarcastic remarks. On 26.01.2012, the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1 moved to the United States of America, where the accused No.4 joined them. The accused No.4 allegedly instigated the accused No.1 against the respondent No.2. The accused Nos.2 and 3 also allegedly instigated the accused No.1 over phone to demand registration of the landed properties in the name of the accused No.1. They frequently quarrelled with the respondent No.2 over the said issue. The accused No.4 desired to marry the respondent No.2’s cousin (LW6), and the accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly pressured her to convince LW6. When LW6 declined the proposal, the accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly bore grudge against the respondent No.2 and her family and continued to harass her, demanding further dowry and transfer of the properties. The accused No.4 subsequently married another person in the United States but continued to reside with the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1, allegedly interfering in their marital life and instigating the accused No.1. The accused No.1 is alleged to have misbehaved with and ill-treated the respondent No.2 on several occasions to coerce her into meeting their demands. He allegedly used the respondent No.2 mobile phone to send messages to his own phone and delete them, in order to create adverse evidence against her. (c) It is further alleged that in July 2013, the respondent No.2 was sent alone to Hyderabad to reside with the accused Nos.2 and 3 for a month. During that period, the accused Nos.2 and 3 allegedly harassed her to transfer the landed properties in favour of the accused No.1, misbehaved with her, and took away the original property documents. (c) It is further alleged that in July 2013, the respondent No.2 was sent alone to Hyderabad to reside with the accused Nos.2 and 3 for a month. During that period, the accused Nos.2 and 3 allegedly harassed her to transfer the landed properties in favour of the accused No.1, misbehaved with her, and took away the original property documents. On her return to the United States of America in August 2013, the accused No.1’s behaviour allegedly deteriorated further, and he continued to harass her at the instigation of the accused Nos.2 to 4. (d) It is further alleged that upon her conceiving, the accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly insisted her to undergo abortion, under threat that she would otherwise be abandoned, the respondent No.2 agreed, and her pregnancy was allegedly forcibly terminated on 07.01.2016 in United States of America. The respondent No.2’s younger sister’s engagement was scheduled for 06.02.2016. The accused No.1 brought the respondent No.2 to Hyderabad on 28.01.2016 and the accused Nos.1 to 4 behaved abnormally and reiterated demands for transfer of the properties. On 08.02.2016, the accused Nos.1 to 3 allegedly took away all her gold and diamond jewellery on the pretext of keeping it safely in their locker. The accused No.1 also took custody of the respondent No.2’s passport, Green Card, Social Security Card, California I.D. card, educational certificates, and other documents, stating that he would keep them safe, and handed them over to the accused Nos.2 and 3. (e) It is further alleged that in the second week of February 2016, the accused Nos.1 to 3 allegedly quarrelled with the respondent No.2 over transfer of the properties and physically ill-treated her. On her refusal, they threatened to divorce her and forcibly sent her to her parents’ house with only her wearing apparel. The accused No.1 immediately left for the United States of America without informing her. The respondent No.2 attempts to contact him were unsuccessful. The accused Nos.2 and 3 allegedly retained all her belongings including jewellery, documents, and Green Card. Only her passport was returned through T.P. Sleeva Reddy, brother-in-law of the accused No.2, after obtaining acknowledgement. Despite repeated requests by the respondent No.2 and her parents, the accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly refused to return her Green Card, certificates, jewellery, and other belongings, and threatened her with dire consequences. Only her passport was returned through T.P. Sleeva Reddy, brother-in-law of the accused No.2, after obtaining acknowledgement. Despite repeated requests by the respondent No.2 and her parents, the accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly refused to return her Green Card, certificates, jewellery, and other belongings, and threatened her with dire consequences. (f) It is further submitted that the accused No.1 allegedly continued to ignore her emails with the intention of compelling her to transfer the properties. The accused No.1 acting at the behest of the accused Nos.2 to 4, allegedly neglected, harassed, and physically and mentally tortured the respondent No.2 on several occasions. The accused Nos.1 to 4 also allegedly misappropriated her documents, gold ornaments, valuables, and land documents and continued to make unlawful demands with the intention of usurping her property and compelling her to facilitate the accused No.4’s marriage with her cousin. The respondent No.2 states that she endured all harassment in the hope that the accused Nos.1 to 4 would mend their behaviour, but in vain. Due to continuous physical and mental cruelty, she suffered ill-health and was unable to concentrate on her studies. Attempts by elders and well-wishers to reconcile the couple failed. Hence, the present complaint was lodged. 5. (a) Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of physical or mental harassment. It is contended that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the respondent No.2, are aged about 68 and 66 years respectively. The accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 had been residing for the major part of their marital life in the United States of America, and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 never stayed with the respondent No.2 for any prolonged duration so as to attribute any act of cruelty or harassment to them. (b) It is further submitted that the petitioner-accused No.4, who is the younger sister of the accused No.1 and the sister-in-law of the respondent No.2, is a married woman having a minor son aged about three years and has been residing separately along with her husband in the United States of America for several years. (b) It is further submitted that the petitioner-accused No.4, who is the younger sister of the accused No.1 and the sister-in-law of the respondent No.2, is a married woman having a minor son aged about three years and has been residing separately along with her husband in the United States of America for several years. It is further submitted that the petitioner-accused No.4 has no nexus whatsoever with the alleged offences, as she has been living independently and never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. (c) Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the present criminal proceedings are nothing but a counterblast to the divorce proceedings initiated by the accused No.1 against the respondent No.2 in F.C.O.P.No.79 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad. It is pointed out that the present criminal case came to be instituted only after service of notice in the divorce proceedings, thereby clearly demonstrating the mala fide intent behind lodging the complaint. (d) It is further submitted that the respondent No.2 and her father compelled the accused No.1 to transfer amounts aggregating to Rs.1,36,41,541/- during the period from 18.06.2013 to 30.01.2016, apart from an amount of USD 30,000/- prior to 18.06.2013. Since the said amounts were not repaid, the accused No.1 was constrained to institute a money recovery suit in O.S.No.490 of 2016 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on 08.08.2016. During the pendency of the said suit, a compromise was arrived at, vide Judgment and decree dated 12.11.2018, wherein it is recorded that upon payment and receipt of an amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/-, the parties shall have no further claims of any nature whatsoever against each other and that all disputes stood fully and finally settled. (e) It is finally contended that a plain reading of the charge sheet does not disclose the essential ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged under Sections 498-A, 420, 406, 506 and 379 read with Section 120-B of IPC, as well as Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to an abuse of the process of law. (f) With the above submissions, while praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a decision in Sanjay D. Jain and others v. State of Maharashtra and others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2090 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held at Paragraph Nos.9 & 10 that: “9. Before examining the FIR along with the complaint of the complainant, we may refer to the parameters that are to be borne in mind while entertaining the prayer for quashing of the FIR. If the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, quashing of the proceedings would be justified. Vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case. As regards the ingredients for making out an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code is concerned, the requirement is that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The latter part of the provision refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. These aspects have been considered in detail in a recent decision in Digambar and Another (supra) (to which one of us, B.R. Gavai, J, as he then was, was a party). 10. A perusal of the FIR and its consideration in entirety indicates that statements of a general nature have been made therein as against the present appellants. The complainant states that on 07.08.2021 when she had gone to her parental house, she had received a call from her mother-in-law raising a demand for clothes and jewellery. When she returned to her matrimonial house on 30.08.2021, she had taken few clothes for the family members. Except this statement, all other statements are of a general nature as well as vague without any particulars. There are other omnibus statements made in the complaint without any particulars whatsoever. When she returned to her matrimonial house on 30.08.2021, she had taken few clothes for the family members. Except this statement, all other statements are of a general nature as well as vague without any particulars. There are other omnibus statements made in the complaint without any particulars whatsoever. It is also to be noted that for the purpose of constituting an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, cruelty as indicated in the Explanation to the said provision must be stated to be inflicted. The cruelty caused by the husband and his family members should be of such nature that it is inflicted with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. Such allegations are absent in the present case. We do not find that on a complete reading of the complaint, a prima facie case for proceeding under Section 498-A of the Penal Code has been made out against the appellants.” (g) Further, he relied upon a decision in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731 : 2023 INSC 779 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph No.19 that: “19. The most significant aspect to be taken note of presently is that Bhawna admittedly parted ways with her matrimonial home and her in-laws in February, 2009, be it voluntarily or otherwise, but she did not choose to make a complaint against them in relation to dowry harassment till the year 2013. Surprisingly, FIR No. 56 dated 09.02.2013 records that the occurrence of the offence was from 02.07.2007 to 05.02.2013, but no allegations were made by Bhawna against the appellants after she left her matrimonial home in February, 2009. Significantly, Bhawna got married to Nimish on 02.07.2007 at Indore and went to Mumbai with him on 08.07.2007. Her interaction with her in-laws thereafter seems to have been only during festivals and is stated to be about 3 or 4 times. Sourabh, an architect, was stationed at Delhi since the year 2007 and no specific allegation was ever made against him by Bhawna. In fact, she merely made a general allegation to the effect that he also tortured her mentally and physically for dowry. No specific instance was cited by her in that regard or as to how he subjected her to such harassment from Delhi. In fact, she merely made a general allegation to the effect that he also tortured her mentally and physically for dowry. No specific instance was cited by her in that regard or as to how he subjected her to such harassment from Delhi. Similarly, Abhishek became a judicial officer 6 or 7 months after her marriage and seems to have had no occasion to be with Bhawna and Nimish at Mumbai. His exposure to her was only when she came to visit her in-laws during festivals. Surprisingly, Bhawna alleges that at the time of his own marriage, Abhishek demanded that Bhawna and her parents should provide him with a car and ?.2 lakhs in cash. Why he would make such a demand for dowry, even if he was inclined to commit such an illegality, from his sister-in-law at the time of his own marriage is rather incongruous and difficult to comprehend. Further, the fact that Bhawna confessed to making a vicious complaint against Abhishek to the High Court clearly shows that her motives were not clean insofar as her brother-in-law, Abhishek, is concerned, and she clearly wanted to wreak vengeance against her in- laws. The allegation levelled by Bhawna against her mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, with regard to how she taunted her when she wore a maxi is wholly insufficient to constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498A IPC.” 6. (a) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that pursuant to the demands made by the accused persons the parents of the respondent No.2 had given substantial dowry, which included about 100 tolas of gold, diamond jewellery, and immovable properties valued at approximately Rs.15 crores, besides incurring huge expenditure towards the engagement ceremony and marriage. It is further submitted that subsequent to the marriage, the accused persons subjected the respondent No.2 to continuous pressure to transfer the said landed properties in favour of the accused No.1, resulting in frequent quarrels and verbal abuse, including over telephonic conversations. (b) It is further contended that the accused Nos.1 and 4 forcibly took the respondent No.2 to a hospital in the United States of America, where her pregnancy was allegedly terminated against her will. It is also alleged that the gold and diamond jewellery belonging to the respondent No.2 was retained in the custody of the accused persons. (b) It is further contended that the accused Nos.1 and 4 forcibly took the respondent No.2 to a hospital in the United States of America, where her pregnancy was allegedly terminated against her will. It is also alleged that the gold and diamond jewellery belonging to the respondent No.2 was retained in the custody of the accused persons. Placing reliance on the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned counsel submitted that the charge sheet contains specific allegations against the petitioners. It is therefore contended that the veracity of the allegations can be determined only upon appreciation of evidence during trial, and at this stage, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and prayed to dismiss both these Criminal Petitions. 7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side and upon a careful perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that the marriage between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1 was solemnized on 30.12.2011. Admittedly, within less than a month thereafter i.e. on 26.01.2012, the couple left for the United States of America, where they resided for the major part of their matrimonial life. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the accused No.1, aged about 68 and 66 years respectively, and are residents of Hyderabad. The petitioner-accused No.4 is the married sister of the accused No.1 and has been residing separately along with her husband in the United States of America. 8. A perusal of the record reveals that the First Information Report in the present criminal case came to be registered on 28.03.2016 along with a lengthy complaint. It is pertinent to note that, prior thereto i.e. on 11.02.2016 the accused No.1 had instituted F.C.O.P.No.79 of 2016 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent No.2. Evidently, the present criminal proceedings were initiated only after service of notice in the divorce proceedings. 9. It is relevant to note that in the complaint itself, there is a reference to the parents of the respondent No.2 having given certain immovable properties, gold and diamond jewellery to her at the time of marriage. It is alleged that the accused Nos.2 to 4 demanded that the respondent No.2 transfer the said landed properties in favour of the accused No.1. It is alleged that the accused Nos.2 to 4 demanded that the respondent No.2 transfer the said landed properties in favour of the accused No.1. It is further alleged that on 08.02.2016, the accused Nos.1 and 3 forcibly took possession of all her gold and diamond ornaments, stating that the same would be kept in their locker on the pretext of threat of thefts in the locality. However, it is to be noted that though the respondent No.2 lodged a detailed complaint on 28.03.2016, she did not furnish any particulars whatsoever regarding the description, weight, value, or identification of the gold and diamond jewellery allegedly retained by the accused persons. Significantly, even the charge sheet filed pursuant to the investigation does not disclose any such particulars, or does it reflect that the investigating agency conducted any seizure, recovery, or panchanama in respect of the alleged jewellery. 10. Apparently, it is evident from the record that there were certain financial transactions between the accused No.1 and the father of the respondent No.2, pursuant to which the father of the respondent No.2 became indebted to the accused No.1. Accordingly, on 08.08.2016 the accused No.1 represented by his father i.e. the petitioner-accused No.2 herein, instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.490 of 2016 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.1,20,56,541/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the father of the respondent No.2. The said suit came to be decreed in terms of a compromise, vide Judgment and decree dated 12.11.2018, wherein it is categorically recorded that upon payment and receipt of an amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/-, the parties shall have no further claims of any nature whatsoever against each other and that all disputes stood fully and finally settled. 11. Further, it is evident that the present complaint was lodged subsequent to the filing of the divorce proceedings by the accused No.1. In this context, it remains unexplained as to why the father of the respondent No.2 would have paid such a substantial amount in settlement of the civil dispute if, in fact, the gold and diamond jewellery of the respondent No.2 had continued to remain in the custody of the accused persons. This unexplained omission casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations levelled against the accused persons. 12. This unexplained omission casts serious doubt on the veracity of the allegations levelled against the accused persons. 12. A perusal of the charge sheet further discloses an allegation that one Sri T.P. Sleeva Reddy had retained the passport of the respondent No.2. However, as is evident from the compromise decree passed in the aforementioned civil suit, there is a specific acknowledgment regarding the receipt of the passport from the said Sri T.P. Sleeva Reddy. This circumstance clearly indicates that the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement with respect to several issues, including certain allegations which now form part of the present criminal proceedings. 13. As regards the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, it is well settled that the prosecution must establish “cruelty” of such a nature as would either drive the woman to commit suicide, or cause grave injury, or danger to life, limb or health. The latter limb of the provision contemplates harassment with a view to coercing the woman or her relatives to meet any unlawful demand for property or valuable security made by the husband or his relatives. 14. In the present case, the material on record discloses that there existed a civil dispute between the accused No.1 and the father of the respondent No.2, which ultimately culminated in a compromise, pursuant to which certain amounts were paid by the father of the respondent No.2 to the accused No.1. It is also evident that the accused No.1 instituted divorce proceedings against the respondent No.2 and that the present criminal case, relating to matrimonial issues, came to be lodged only after service of notice in the said divorce proceedings. 15. Even if the averments contained in the complaint are taken at their face value, the allegations attributed to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of the accused No.1, pertain to the year 2013 and are confined to an alleged demand over telephonic conversations to transfer certain properties in the name of the accused No.1, without any specific particulars or proximate acts of cruelty. 16. Insofar as the petitioner-accused No.4 is concerned, she is a married woman having a minor son and has been residing separately along with her husband, independent of the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. 16. Insofar as the petitioner-accused No.4 is concerned, she is a married woman having a minor son and has been residing separately along with her husband, independent of the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. The allegation of forced termination of pregnancy attributed to the petitioner-accused No.4 is stated to have occurred in the United States of America. Admittedly, no medical records from any competent medical authority in the United States have been produced in support of the said allegation. Further, no sanction as contemplated under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been obtained for prosecuting offences allegedly committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of India. 17. Insofar as the other offences are concerned, the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC requires the existence of a dishonest intention at the very inception. In the present case, the marriage subsisted for several years and the allegations arise out of subsequent matrimonial discord. The material on record does not disclose any initial deception or fraudulent inducement so as to attract the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC. The allegation of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC is purely inferential and is not supported by any material demonstrating a prior meeting of minds or concerted action among the accused persons. As observed hereinabove, except for a bald allegation that the accused persons retained the gold and diamond jewellery, there is no description, identification, or valuation of such jewellery. Significantly, no seizure, recovery, or panchanama was conducted by the investigating agency in respect of the alleged property, thereby failing to satisfy the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of IPC. Even as per the complaint, there is no averment that any property was taken away without the consent of the respondent No.2 so as to constitute the offence of theft under Section 379 of IPC. Further, there is no specific assertion as to the nature of any threat allegedly extended by the accused persons which could have caused alarm to the respondent No.2, a sine qua non for attracting the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of IPC. 18. Further, there is no specific assertion as to the nature of any threat allegedly extended by the accused persons which could have caused alarm to the respondent No.2, a sine qua non for attracting the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of IPC. 18. The question that now arises for consideration is whether the allegations levelled in the charge sheet against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are supported by any cogent material warranting their being put to trial, or whether the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of the allegations contained in the charge sheet, the investigating agency has examined as many as seven witnesses. Out of them, four witnesses are the respondent No.2 and her close relatives, who are admittedly interested witnesses; two witnesses are projected as independent witnesses; and one witness is the Investigating Officer. It is pertinent to note that both the so- called independent witnesses have categorically stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they are friends of, and well acquainted with, the father of the respondent No.2. Significantly, both witnesses have stated that “I came to know through D. Marreddy” and “Mr. Marreddy informed me”, which clearly demonstrates that their statements are based on ‘hearsay’ and not on any personal or direct knowledge of the alleged incidents. Consequently, their statements do not disclose any independent or direct material implicating the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4. 19. It is further relevant to note that there is not a single medical record or the statement of any competent medical practitioner placed on record to substantiate the allegation of physical harassment by the accused persons. Admittedly, the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1 resided for the major part of their matrimonial life in the United States of America. Though it is alleged that the respondent No.2 was subjected to mental harassment by way of telephonic conversations, no mobile phone numbers have been furnished by the respondent No.2, nor has the investigating agency placed on record any call detail records, recordings, or other material evidencing such telephonic interactions. 20. Though it is alleged that the respondent No.2 was subjected to mental harassment by way of telephonic conversations, no mobile phone numbers have been furnished by the respondent No.2, nor has the investigating agency placed on record any call detail records, recordings, or other material evidencing such telephonic interactions. 20. On a careful scrutiny of the entire material, it appears that the present case is a classic instance of an attempt to rope in all the family members of the accused No.1, a practice which has been consistently deprecated by the Honourable Supreme Court in a catena of Judgments. While the scope of interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is well settled, a plain reading of the complaint, the charge sheet, and the accompanying material reveals that the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged and, at best, constitute vague, omnibus, and generalized accusations. Therefore, permitting the continuation of the criminal proceedings and subjecting the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 to the rigours of trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 21. Accordingly, both these Criminal Petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.378 of 2016 and C.C.No.1394 of 2023 respectively, on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.