ORDER : VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.1243 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , [for short ‘IPC’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 , [for short ‘DP Act’] 2. Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri Rachuri Lakshmikar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners herein are the parents-in-law of Respondent No.2 and there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that, Accused No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.1176 of 2023 on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam attributing illicit relationship of Respondent No.2 with her cousin and after receiving summons therein, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint with bald and omnibus allegations. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences and the same has to be proved during trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 6. It is alleged in the complaint that, the marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 had taken place on 14.05.2021. At the time of marriage, there was exchange of dowry of Rs.21,50,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- towards marriage expenses, Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing bike, Rs.3,00,000/- towards sare saman, 20 tulas of gold and 3 kgs of silver articles. After three months of the marriage, Accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing Respondent No.2 demanding additional dowry of Rs.50.00 lakhs and subjected her to both physical and mental cruelty. In January, 2022, Respondent No.2 was sent to her parental home on the eve of the marriage of her brother and thereafter, she was not taken to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, at the intervention of elders, she was sent to matrimonial home in February, 2023, however, there was no change in the attitude of Accused No.1 and the Petitioners herein. As such, she lodged the present complaint. 7. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others Vs. State of Telangana and another , [ 2024 INSC 953 ] the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “21. Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after quarrelling with appellant No.1 with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship with appellant No.1. However, she again left the matrimonial house. When appellant No.1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13.12.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 01.02.2022 by respondent No.2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by respondent No. 2 is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with appellant No. 1 and his family members. 25. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by respondent No. 2 is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with appellant No. 1 and his family members. 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. 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. 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.” 8. In Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand & another , [ (2010) 7 SCC 667 ] , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “ 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. 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 husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of 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 scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, 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 amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 9. 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 amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 9. To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present in the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. 10. In the case on hand, a bare perusal of the complaint shows that the allegations made by Respondent No.2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that Accused No.1 harassed her and that Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, 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. The record further shows that Accused No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.1176 of 2023 on the file of Family Court, Visakhapatnam seeking dissolution of marriage attributing illicit relationship of Respondent No.2 with her cousin and after receipt of summons in the said petition, the present complaint has been lodged. 11. Except making a casual reference of the names of the Petitioners in the complaint, nothing is attributed against them in specific. In the absence of any specific overt acts against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against them is a sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case for quashment by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 12. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.1243 of 2023 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed.