ORDER : (M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.813/2018 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kudligi for the offences punishable under Section 4 98A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 . 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court has quashed the proceedings qua accused Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 in Crl.P.No.102418/2021 and qua accused No.4 in Crl.P.No.101229/2020 and the present petitioner is accused No.5, who was a security guard in the house, who is also drawn into the web of crime for the offences punishable under Section 4 98A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 . 3. In the light of the order so passed quashing the proceedings against the other members of the family and present petitioner being a security guard in the house, I deem it appropriate to grant the benefit of such quashment to the present petitioner/accused No.5 as well. 4. This Court while quashing the proceedings qua accused Nos.2, 3, 6 and 7 in Crl.P.No.102418/2021 has held as follows:- "9. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the parties, is as narrated hereinabove. Accused No.1 who is not before the Court gets married to the respondent No.2 – complainant. The relationship between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 turns sour, which results in registration of the complaint on 18.06.2017. A perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that the offences are against the husband or other members of the family and not the petitioners, who are accused Nos.2, 3, 6 & 7 in relation mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. 10. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows: 11. A perusal of the summary of the charge sheet would indicate various grievances of the respondent No.2 - complainant, who is the wife of the accused No.1 against the accused No.1. The petitioners are accused Nos.2, 3, 6 & 7 against whom there is not even a speck of allegation. A perusal of the summary of the charge sheet would indicate various grievances of the respondent No.2 - complainant, who is the wife of the accused No.1 against the accused No.1. The petitioners are accused Nos.2, 3, 6 & 7 against whom there is not even a speck of allegation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further take this Court through the statements recorded prior to filing of the charge sheet, in order to demonstrate that there are no allegations against these petitioners. A perusal at the statements would vindicate the submission of the learned counsel, the summary of the charge sheet also does not indicate the presence of any ingredients that would become an offence under Section 4 98A of the IPC or even Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 12. In the light of no ingredients of any offence found in the summary of the charge sheet or the statements further proceedings if permitted to be continued would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 , wherein the Apex Court has 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-A IPC 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-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 12. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-A IPC 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 4 98-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 4 98-A IPC 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 4 98-A IPC 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-A IPC 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. 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 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, ???? 21) "21. 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, ???? 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. 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-A IPC 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. 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. 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. 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." 13. In the light of the afore narrated facts and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others (SUPRA), if further proceedings are permitted to be continue, it would become an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petitioner is allowed. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petitioner is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.813/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section 4 98A of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 stands quashed qua the petitioners - accused Nos.2, 3, 6 & 7." 5. In the light of the quashment of the proceedings qua accused Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, the proceedings qua the present petitioner/accused No.5 also deserves to be quashed. 6. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings qua the present petitioner/accused No.5 in C.C.No.813/2018 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kudligi for the offences punishable under Section 4 98A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 , stands quashed.