ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.157 of 2022 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Parigi. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’). 02. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri B. Ramulu, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record. 03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 19.08.2021, and they lived happily for 20 days. Thereafter, she was subjected to mental and physical harassment for the purpose of additional dowry by the accused No.1 and the same was instigated by the accused Nos.2 to 4. It is further alleged that a panchayat was convened by the elders, during which the accused persons were admonished; however, there was no change in their conduct. The accused Nos.1 to 4 beat the respondent No.2 and she was necked out of the house. Thereby, she lodged the present complaint against the accused persons. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the mother-in- law and sister-in-law of the respondent No.2 and the petitioner-accused No.4 is the husband of the accused No.3. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are living separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 and never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. The petitioners has neither demanded dowry from the respondent No.2 nor from her parents at any point of time. It is also submitted that the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.06.2022 wherein the respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw the criminal and civil cases. It is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet. It is also submitted that the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.06.2022 wherein the respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw the criminal and civil cases. It is further contended that there are no specific or direct allegations made against the petitioners in the charge sheet. The contents of the same do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused. 05. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. 06. A perusal of the entire record reveals that, after their marriage in the year 2021, the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 led happy marital life for a period of 20 days. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused No.1 with the instigation of the other accused subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental harassment for additional dowry. The petitioner-accused No.2 is the mother of the accused No.1, who is aged about 60 years. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the married sister of the accused No.1; the petitioner- accused No.4 is the husband of the accused No.3. It is further apparent from the record that the present case was registered on 17.02.2022, and that subsequently, the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.06.2022, wherein the respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw the criminal and civil proceedings instituted against the accused. 07. In Geddam Jhansi and another v. The State of Telangana and others , 2025 INSC 160 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.31 to 36 & 38 held that: “ 31 . Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the penal code or any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the accused and a prima facie case is made out. It applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. It applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to support the same may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. Institution of family constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations. For the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences. 32 . We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality. 33 . It goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by public at large, except perhaps by the immediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur. In fact, to deal with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. In fact, to deal with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Since, violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now criminalised entailing serious consequences on the perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner. 34 . For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on the basis of cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent to make a partner to hurl allegations of domestic violence and harassment against the other partner, would normally not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a series of acts which turns, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general allegation of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such perpetrators would not suffice, as is the case in respect of the present appellants. 35 . We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family. There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law. 36 . Our observations, however, should not be generalised to mean that relatives cannot be brought under the purview of the aforesaid penal provisions when they have actively participated in inflicting cruelty on the daughter-in-law/victim. What needs to be assessed is whether such allegations are genuine with specific criminal role assigned to such members of the family or whether it is merely a spill over and side-effect of a matrimonial discord and allegations made by an emotionally disturbed person. Each and every case of domestic violence will thus depend on the peculiar facts obtaining in each case. 38 . We have also noted that the appellants do not live with the principal accused. While the marriage took place in Pondicherry and the complainant lived with her husband and mother-in-law in Chennai, the appellants are residents of Hyderabad. As the appellants do not stay together with the complainant and her husband and mother-in-law, to make the appellants as co-accused for alleged offences committed in the matrimonial house of the complainant on the basis of very generalised allegations does not appear to be tenable.” 08. It is pertinent to note that there is no reference to any act of harassment by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 towards the respondent No.2. Significantly, there are no specific, direct, or distinct allegations in the entire charge sheet describing the manner in which the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 4 said to have subjected the respondent No.2 to physical or mental harassment. The charge sheet lacks any detailed particulars or instances of the alleged harassment attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4. 09. Significantly, there are no specific, direct, or distinct allegations in the entire charge sheet describing the manner in which the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 4 said to have subjected the respondent No.2 to physical or mental harassment. The charge sheet lacks any detailed particulars or instances of the alleged harassment attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4. 09. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it apposite to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 wherein at Paragraph Nos.18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 & 32 it was 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. 24 . Insofar as appellant Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, we find that they have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively. 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. 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. 28 . The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. 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 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 29 . We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. 29 . We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant- husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. 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 . 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.” 10. In the present case, as observed supra, the petitioner-accused No.2 is the old aged mother of the accused No.1, the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 who are sister and brother-in-law of the accused No.1 have been residing separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. In the present case, as observed supra, the petitioner-accused No.2 is the old aged mother of the accused No.1, the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 who are sister and brother-in-law of the accused No.1 have been residing separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. A perusal of the charge sheet further discloses that the major allegations are primarily directed against the accused No.1, and the respondent No.2 appears to be aggrieved by his conduct. Even though certain allegations of physical assault were made, there is no medical evidence to substantiate the said allegations. However, it is also evident from the record that the present case was registered on 17.02.2022; however, subsequently, the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.06.2022, wherein the respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw the criminal and civil proceedings instituted against the accused. There are no specific overt acts attributed to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, nor are there any direct or particularized allegations made against them. Such generalized and sweeping allegations, unsupported by concrete evidence or specific particulars, cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of clear, direct, and substantive allegations indicating the involvement of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4, the continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.157 of 2022 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Parigi, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.