ORDER : (M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.) The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.58 of 2024 registered on 02-12-2024 for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 and 85 of BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows: - Before embarking upon narration of facts, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the protagonists in the lis. The 2 nd respondent is the complainant. The 1 st petitioner is the husband of the 2 nd respondent. 2 nd and 3 rd petitioners are the mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively of the complainant. The 1 st petitioner and the complainant get introduced to each other in the year 2022 through mutual friends. On 23-08-2023 the 1 st petitioner and the complainant get married. After one year of marriage, it appears, the relationship between the 1 st petitioner and the complainant flounders. On various allegations and grievances of floundering of the relationship, proceedings before various fora are instituted by the 1 st petitioner/husband against the 2 nd respondent/wife or the wife against the husband. The proceedings are for annulment of marriage and the allegations that would become ingredients of the provision of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘Domestic Violence Act’ for short). Apart from the aforesaid proceedings, the 2 nd respondent/complainant registers a complaint on 02-12-2024 before the Women’s Police Station, Kothnur, Bengaluru. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.58 of 2024 for the afore-quoted offences. The moment crime is registered, the petitioners within 10 days of registration of crime, are before this Court in the subject petition. Owing to certain paragraphs in the complaint, on a prima facie observation that what was projected by the wife against the husband was with regard to the husband treating the cat in the house better than the wife, this Court granted an interim order of stay of investigation. On receipt of notice, the complainant has preferred an application seeking vacation of interim order, along with statement of objections. The matter, with the consent of parties, is heard. 3. Heard Sri Keshav M.Datar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B .N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri R. Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. The matter, with the consent of parties, is heard. 3. Heard Sri Keshav M.Datar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B .N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri R. Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri Keshav M.Datar would vehemently contend that a perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that it is absolutely frivolous. There are no ingredients of cruelty for the purpose of demand of dowry. All that the complaint alleges is, the husband is a sexually perverted person demanding unnatural sex, alcohol addict, always indulges in cricket betting and playing Ludo. Barring this there is no allegation of cruelty against the husband. Mother-in-law and father- in-law are without any rhyme or reason dragged into these proceedings. He would seek quashment of the crime on the score that it is an abuse of the process of law. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Nagaraj R representing the complainant would vehemently refute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He would take this Court through elaborate statement of objections to contend that every material that is alleged against the husband is suppressed in the case at hand. He has indulged in betting, deliberately twisting the arm every time for which the complainant has to be hospitalized. He would take this Court through the discharge summary and the wound certificate, as also pictures, chats, whatapps with other women in the teeth of talks of marriage and even after the marriage. He would contend that the husband had an affair outside the marriage with two or three women and use to indulge in beating the complainant every time. Insofar as mother-in-law and father-in-law are concerned, he would contend that the complainant is a performer of Bharathanatyam. The parents of the husband wanted her to stop dancing. When she continued with dancing performance, they hurled derogatory words against the complainant. They have also instigated the husband to behave in the manner that he has done to the wife. They were forcing the complainant to bear a child which the complainant at that juncture did not want it, as the 1 st petitioner/husband was not taking responsibility to take care of the wife. Therefore, she did not want another life into the family. They were forcing the complainant to bear a child which the complainant at that juncture did not want it, as the 1 st petitioner/husband was not taking responsibility to take care of the wife. Therefore, she did not want another life into the family. On all these allegations, the learned counsel for the complainant would contend that, the crime is registered just 10 days prior to the grant of interim order in the case at hand and the investigation is at a very nascent stage. He would submit that investigation must be permitted to be continued against the petitioners. 6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B .N. Jagadeesha representing the State would also take this Court through the application seeking vacation of interim order. The learned counsel would contend that the complaint narrates vivid details of all the petitioners, reference to the pet cat is only in a paragraph and that is not the entire fulcrum of the complaint. He would also seek dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are what is narrated in the complaint. The relationship between the 1 st petitioner and the complainant is that of husband and wife. The two get married after falling in love on 23-08-2023. Barely after a year of marriage, the relationship between the two has floundered and floundering leads to an extent that the husband prefers a petition seeking annulment of marriage in M.C.No.7256 of 2024 and the wife filing proceedings invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. At the same time, the subject complaint comes to be registered on 2-12-2024. Since the entire proceedings before this Court sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: A particular paragraph in the complaint is dedicated to the pet cat in the house which always used to cause hurt to the wife. This is only in a stray paragraph. The entire complaint gives a vivid narration of what has transpired in the year of marriage. This becomes a crime in Crime No.58 of 2024 for the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections. 9. This is only in a stray paragraph. The entire complaint gives a vivid narration of what has transpired in the year of marriage. This becomes a crime in Crime No.58 of 2024 for the offences punishable under the aforementioned sections. 9. The complainant has placed elaborate statement of objections bringing out all the events that have happened right from the date of marriage till the date of registration of complaint. It appears that on 10-11-2024 the complainant had to get herself admitted to the hospital on account of an injury caused by the act of the husband /1 st petitioner. The discharge summary is appended to the statement of objections. The discharge summary indicates that the wife has sustained injury in the right wrist and hand due to assault and twisting by the 1 st petitioner/husband. The diagnosis and the history read as follows: “ Diagnosis: Soft Tissue Injury Chief Complaints: Pain in the Right wrist and Hand History: 27/F was brought to the ED by her mother and brother with an a/h/o assault by a known person at ~ 11.35 p.m. on 09-11-2024. Sustained injury to the right wrist and hand (twisted) No h/o Fall/trauma to the head/chest/pelvis No h/o ENT bleed/LOC/seizures.” Several whatsapp chats are also appended to the statement of objections. They are so horrendous; they cannot be narrated in the order. Usage of profanities are clear in all the chats. On such profanities rests the fulcrum of allegations in the complaint. Whatsapp chats are also indicative of the fact of vagabondish lifestyle of the 1 st petitioner/husband, as also the torture meted out by him to the complainant every time. The whatsapp chats also indicate the torture meted out by the husband to the wife on demand of unnatural sex. With all these allegations, it becomes a matter of trial for the husband in the least to come out clean in a full-blown trial. 10. The matter is at the stage of investigation. 10 days had left prior to grant of interim order. The case against the husband forms complete ingredients of cruelty as depicted under Section 85 of the BNS . Section 85 of BNS is Section 498A of the earlier regime of IPC . Section 85 punishes a husband or a relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Section 86 defines what is cruelty. The case against the husband forms complete ingredients of cruelty as depicted under Section 85 of the BNS . Section 85 of BNS is Section 498A of the earlier regime of IPC . Section 85 punishes a husband or a relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Section 86 defines what is cruelty. Both Sections 85 and 86 read as follows: “ 85. 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. 86. Cruelty defined .—For the purposes of Section 85, “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.” Cruelty as defined in Section 86 would mean any wilful conduct which is of 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. Sub-section (b) of Section 86 would define harassment to a woman for the purpose of meeting unlawful demand of any property or valuable security and harassment meted out in relation to such demand. A perusal at the complaint would undoubtedly indicate the offence of cruelty, both mental and physical on the complainant/wife by the husband/1 st petitioner. The ingredients of Section 85 are clearly met against the husband in the case at hand. 11. The other offences alleged against the 1 st petitioner are the ones punishable under Sections 115 (2) of BNS . Section 115 (2) deals with voluntarily causing hurt. Section 115 (2) is Section 323 of the IPC . Section 114 defines hurt and Section 115 causing voluntary hurt. The provisions read as follows: “ 114. 11. The other offences alleged against the 1 st petitioner are the ones punishable under Sections 115 (2) of BNS . Section 115 (2) deals with voluntarily causing hurt. Section 115 (2) is Section 323 of the IPC . Section 114 defines hurt and Section 115 causing voluntary hurt. The provisions read as follows: “ 114. Hurt .—Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. 115. Voluntarily causing hurt .—(1) Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said “voluntarily to cause hurt”. (2) Whoever, except in the case provided for by sub- section (1) of Section 122 voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.” Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. Section 115 is voluntarily causing hurt. With an intention to cause hurt, if a person does any act, it becomes ingredient of Section 115 . The act of the husband clearly brings out ingredients of Sections 114 and 115 of BNS . Therefore, the said offence is also made out against the husband. 12. The other offence is under Sections 351 and 352. Sections 351 and 352 are Section 504 of the earlier regime of IPC . The said ingredients are also prima facie found in the case at hand. Therefore, all the offences that are laid are prima facie present in the case at hand qua the husband/1 st petitioner. Therefore, stay of investigation or obliteration of investigation qua the husband cannot at this juncture be considered even to be granted. 13. Insofar as mother-in-law and father-in-law are concerned, what is found in the complaint against them is as follows: The aforesaid is what is contended in the statement of objections of the complainant. Therefore, the allegations against the mother-in- law and father-in-law are that they have instigated or influenced the 1 st petitioner/husband to behave in the manner that he has done. Therefore, the allegations against the mother-in- law and father-in-law are that they have instigated or influenced the 1 st petitioner/husband to behave in the manner that he has done. The afore-narration in the complaint, would not by any means, become ingredients of Section 85 of BNS or Sections 115 , 351 or 352 of BNS as is alleged. Even the issue of demand of dowry is also bleakly alleged against the mother-in-law and father-in-law. Though the FIR cannot mean an encyclopaedia of offences for all the allegations to be found in it, it would always be a matter of investigation. But, in six pages narration of the complaint quoted supra, except the requoted passage supra, there is nothing that would become an offence against mother-in-law and father-in-law. The entire complaint is dedicated to horrendous acts of the husband. 14. If the aforesaid is against the husband, what is against the mother-in-law and father-in-law is necessary to be considered. The allegations made in the complaint do not even prima facie meet the ingredients of the offence against mother-in-law and father-in- law, while it meets in abundance against the husband. Therefore, permitting further investigation even against mother-in-law and father-in-law would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of law. 15. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR , (2022)6 SCC 599 wherein it is held as follows: - “Issue involved 10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the appellant in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed? 11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498- AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. [ Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. , (2018) 10 SCC 472 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has observed : (SCC pp. 478-79, para 14) “14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. [Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.” 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4) “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-AIPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [ Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand , (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-AIPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations 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 complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21) “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [ G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad , (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12) ‘12. … There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.’ The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” 16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6) “6. … The courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 18. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR Respondent 1 i.e. the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the learned Principal Judge, Purnea, to not harass the respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017. 20. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the appellant in-laws would simply result in an abuse of the process of law. 21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the appellant in-laws would simply result in an abuse of the process of law. 21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” (Emphasis supplied) Further, the Apex Court in the case of PAYAL SHARMA v. STATE OF PUNJAB , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473] has held as follows: “8. In view of the aforementioned rival contentions, we bestowed an analytical consideration and found that besides the afore-extracted paragraph 7 there is absolutely no consideration of the contentions of the appellant in the impugned judgment. We have already noticed that the accused No. 5 is only the wife of the cousin brother of the husband of the complainant's daughter, and she was living in another city along with her husband. In view of the aforesaid undisputed position, it is relevant to refer to certain decisions of this Court. 9. I n the decision in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand , (2010) 7 SCC 667 , this Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy, it was further held therein. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy, it was further held therein. We have no hesitation to hold that the said observation of this Court is in fact, sounding of a caution, against non- discharge of the duty to see whether implication of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the husband is over implication or whether allegation against any such person is an exaggerated version, in matrimonial disputes of this nature. In this context, it is to be noted that the term ‘relative’ has not been defined in the statute and, therefore, it must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Hence, normally, it can be taken to include, father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or granddaughter of any individual or the spouse of any person. To put it shortly, it includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. In paragraph 35 of Preeti Gupta's case (supra) it was furthermore held thus:— “…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 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.” 10. In such circumstances, normally against a person who is not falling under any of the aforesaid categories when allegations are raised, in the light of the observations made in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), the Court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see whether such implication is over implication and/or whether the allegations against such a person is an exaggerated version. We have already taken note of the fact that except the observation made in paragraph 7 there is no consideration at all of the contentions of accused No. 5 in the impugned order. 11. We have already taken note of the fact that except the observation made in paragraph 7 there is no consideration at all of the contentions of accused No. 5 in the impugned order. 11. In the decision in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. , (2012) 10 SCC 741 this Court held that mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication viz., to draw the entire members of the household in the domestic quarrel resulting in matrimonial dispute, especially when it happens soon after the wedding. In the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar , (2022) 6 SCC 599 this Court quashed proceedings in so far as family members of the husband on the ground that the allegations against them are general and ominous in nature. In matters like the one at hand when relatives not residing in the same house where the alleged victim resides, the courts shall not stop consideration by merely looking into the question where the accused is a person falling within the ambit of the expression ‘relative’ for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC , but should also consider whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely to implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main accused. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein after considering the statutory provisions and the earlier decisions, this Court referred to various categories of cases where the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. could be exercised by High Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. One among such categories is where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused. 12. One among such categories is where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused. 12. We will proceed to consider the case in respect of accused No. 5 a little later and now, will consider the challenge of complainant against quashment of the subject FIR and all consequential proceedings based thereon, qua accused No. 6 bearing in mind the above conclusions and decisions. It is to be noted that the impugned order itself would reveal that the learned counsel who appeared for the complainant admitted before the High Court regarding the absence of allegations against accused No. 6 as relates offences under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC . This is discernible from paragraph 6 of the impugned order and it reads thus:— “6. Qua Petitioner No. 1, Ld. Counsel admits that so far as Sections 406 and 498-A are concerned, there are no specific allegations. He asserts that offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120- B of the IPC have been added later on and the allegations levelled against petitioner No. 1 shall well fall within the ambit of Sections 420 IPC and 417 of the IPC .” … … … 16. In view of the relationship between accused No. 5 and the complainant and also the fact that accused No. 5 got related to the husband of complainant's daughter only through her marriage with accused No. 6, we are at a loss to understand as to how the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC , could be raised against accused No. 5 in the light of the allegations in the subject FIR especially when the complainant himself admitted lack of specific allegations to connect accused No. 6 with the said offences and if similar are the allegations raised against appellant Nos. 5 and 6 qua the aforesaid offences.” The Apex Court, in its recent judgment, in the case of DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA v. STATE OF TELANGANA , [ (2025)3 SCC 735 ] holds as follows: “14. Section 498-AIPC deals with offences committed by the husband or relatives of the husband subjecting cruelty towards the wife. 5 and 6 qua the aforesaid offences.” The Apex Court, in its recent judgment, in the case of DARA LAKSHMI NARAYANA v. STATE OF TELANGANA , [ (2025)3 SCC 735 ] holds as follows: “14. Section 498-AIPC deals with offences committed by the husband or relatives of the husband subjecting cruelty towards the wife. The said provision reads as under: “ 498-A. 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.” … … … 16. An offence is punishable under Section 498- AIPC when a husband or his relative subjects a woman to cruelty, which may result in imprisonment for a term extending up to three years and a fine. The Explanation under Section 498-AIPC defines “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-AIPC to mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses ( a ) or ( b ). The first limb of clause ( a ) of the Explanation to Section 498-AIPC, states that “cruelty” means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The second limb of clause ( a ) of the Explanation to Section 498-AIPC, states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. The second limb of clause ( a ) of the Explanation to Section 498-AIPC, states that cruelty means any wilful conduct that is of such a nature as to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman. Further, clause ( b ) of the Explanation to Section 498-AIPC states that cruelty would also include harassment of the woman where such harassment is to coerce 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. … … … 19. The issue for consideration is whether, given the facts and circumstances of the case and after examining the FIR, the High Court was correct in refusing to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings against the appellants arising out of FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated 1-2-2022 under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. … … … 22. Losing hope in the marriage, Appellant 1 issued a legal notice to Respondent 1 seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13-12-2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by Appellant 1, Respondent 2 lodged the present FIR No. 82 of 2022 on 1-2-2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. … … … 26. Insofar as Appellants 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 Appellants 2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate Appellant 1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple, namely, Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 and their children. Appellants 2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellants 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur, respectively. 27. 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. Appellants 2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellants 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur, respectively. 27. 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, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 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. … … … 30. The inclusion of Section 498-AIPC 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 498- AIPC 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 scrutinised, 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-AIPC 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. 31. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-AIPC 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. 31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-AIPC 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 498- AIPC 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. 32. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] observed as follows : (SCC p. 698, para 12) “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.” 33. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] 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 scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 34. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants. 35. We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 16-2-2022 [Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3561] in Criminal Petition No. 1479 of 2022 filed under Section 482CrPC. Criminal Petition No. 1479 of 2022 under Section 482 CrPC shall accordingly stand allowed. FIR No. 82 of 2022 dated 1-2-2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498-AIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act against Appellants 1 to 6, charge-sheet dated 3-6-2022 filed in the Court of 1st Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Cyberabad and the trial pending in the Court of 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri against the appellants herein shall accordingly stand quashed.” In the light of the law as laid down by the Apex Court qua other members of the family or even the mother-in-law and father-in-law, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the crime against them. 16. 16. Insofar as 1st petitioner/husband is concerned, it is for him to face investigation and come out clean in a full-blown trial, as the allegations against him undoubtedly meet ingredients of every offence alleged. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) Crime in Crime No.58 of 2024 insofar as it concerns the petitioners 2 and 3/mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant stands quashed. (iii) Crime in Crime No.58 of 2024 insofar as it concerns the 1st petitioner/husband of the complainant is sustained. Investigation shall continue against the 1st petitioner. I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed, as a consequence.