ORDER : JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.775 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’). 02. Heard Sri Karam Chendu Komireddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record. 03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 03.06.2017. They lived happily for a period of two months. The accused No.1 with the instigation of the accused Nos.2 to 5 started harassing her physically and mentally by additional demanding and necked out the respondent No.2 from matrimonial house. Hence, the respondent No.2 filed the present case for the alleged offences. 04. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offences and that he never harassed the respondent No.2. The petitioner-accused No.3 is the parental uncle of the accused No.1. The petitioner- accused No.3 is aged about 56 years and residing at Dubai. The petitioner-accused No.3 never resided at matrimonial home or interfered in the matrimonial issues of the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. There is no allegation of demand of dowry against the petitioner-accused No.3. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner-accused No.3. The contents of the complaint or charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 498- A of IPC and 4 of the Act. Hence, he prayed to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3. 05. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, which are triable issues. The truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 06. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that most of the allegations are levelled against the accused No.1. The truth or otherwise would come out only after conducting trial by the concerned Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition. 06. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that most of the allegations are levelled against the accused No.1. The petitioner-accused No.3 was living separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2, at Dubai and he was no way connected with the matrimonial issues of the accused No.1 and respondent No.2. It appears that the present complaint was lodged with vague and omnibus allegations. The petitioner-accused No.3 never resided in the matrimonial home or interfered with the matrimonial issues of the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2. There are no specific details or descriptive particulars of instances of physical or mental harassment caused by the petitioner- accused No.3. In the entire contents of the charge sheet, there is no whisper with regard to the criminality on the part of the petitioner-accused No.3. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution. 07. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , [AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173] wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India at Paragraph Nos.18, 25 & 31 held that: “ 18 . A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No.1 harassed her and that appellant Nos.2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No.2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 25 . A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. 31 . Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667 held that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by the husband’s close relatives who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.” 08. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting them. Hence, the petitioner-accused No.3 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against him. 09. Therefore, the Courts are bound to ensure whether there is any prima facie case against the husband and his family members before prosecuting them. Hence, the petitioner-accused No.3 cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against him. 09. 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 the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 are liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.3 in C.C.No.775 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Jagtial, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.