ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.858 of 2021 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the D.P. Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case: Respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 08.12.2020 stating that she married accused No.1 on 11.02.2010 at Visakhapatnam in a love-cum-arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, cash, gold, vehicles and other articles were given. After the marriage, they were blessed with a male child. During ten years of marital life, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by accused Nos.1 to 3. She was insulted, harassed, and discriminated against on the basis of caste and colour. The husband allegedly maintained illicit relationships with other women and, when questioned about the same, assaulted and abused her. Accused No.1 also threatened to kill their minor son and on one occasion, took the child away for several hours without informing her and did not respond to her calls. She further stated that accused No.1 neglected his duties as a husband and father and deserted her on 18.02.2019 by leaving the matrimonial home. She alleged stated that she has not received any financial support since January 2020 and accused Nos. 2 and 3 also failed to support her. Therefore, she approached the Women Police Station, Begumpet, and lodged a complaint on 08.12.2020 seeking legal action against the petitioners and accused No.1. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R.No.119 of 2020 was registered by the Women Police Station, Begumpet, Hyderabad City, against the petitioners and accused No.1. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed a charge sheet before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the aforesaid offences and renumbered the case as C.C.No.858 of 2021. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 06.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. To give one opportunity, the matter was posted on 13.10.2025. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the aforesaid offences and renumbered the case as C.C.No.858 of 2021. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 06.10.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. To give one opportunity, the matter was posted on 13.10.2025. Once again, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 19.01.2026, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, either physically or virtually. To give one more opportunity, the matter was posted to 21.01.2026 under the caption ‘for orders’. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2 in the morning and afternoon sessions, either physically or virtually. Therefore, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 4. Heard Mr. Akshat Sanghi, learned counsel representing Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 5. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners: Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime solely on the ground that they are the parents of accused No.1. The petitioners never lived with respondent No.2 and accused No.1 and that, after the marriage, respondent No.2 and accused No.1 have been living separately. The only allegation made in the complaint as well as in the final report is that the petitioners are supporting accused No.1. The nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners regarding demand of additional dowry and other allegations in respect of accused No.1 only. He further submitted that even if the allegations made either in the complaint or in the final report are taken into consideration, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498-A and 420 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the D.P. Act are not attracted. Respondent No.2, with an intention to harass the petitioners, has implicated them as accused by making omnibus allegations. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. 6. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1: Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that whether the petitioners have committed the offences or not has to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after a full- fledged trial. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. 6. Submissions of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1: Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that whether the petitioners have committed the offences or not has to be adjudicated and decided by the trial Court after a full- fledged trial. Based on the grounds pleaded in the present criminal petition, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.858 of 2021. Analysis 7. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioners are mother-in-law and father-in-law of respondent No.2 respectively. The marriage between respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was solemnized on 11.02.2010. The specific case of the petitioners is that from the date of marriage, respondent No.2 and accused No.1 have been living together separately. The petitioners never lived with respondent No.2 and never demanded any additional dowry at any point of time. In the complaint and the final report, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498-A and 420 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 6 of the D.P. Act. The major allegations are levelled only against accused No.1. 8. In Maram Nirmala & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr ., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that vague, general, and omnibus allegations against parents-in-law, without specific particulars as to time, place, or overt acts, cannot form the basis for prosecution under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that mere naming of family members in a matrimonial dispute, without attributing a distinct and active role in the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry demand, does not disclose a prima facie offence and continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It was further held that in the absence of specific instances demonstrating cruelty or unlawful demand, relatives who were not directly involved in the matrimonial life of the complainant cannot be mechanically roped into criminal prosecution. It was further held that in the absence of specific instances demonstrating cruelty or unlawful demand, relatives who were not directly involved in the matrimonial life of the complainant cannot be mechanically roped into criminal prosecution. In the present case, the record reveals that the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand are general in nature and no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners, who are the parents of the accused, and it is not in dispute that they were residing separately and never lived with the complainant in the matrimonial home. Such allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC insofar as the petitioners are concerned. 9. Further, in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down illustrative categories wherein the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice, including cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offence or are manifestly attended with mala fide intent. 8. In Maram Nirmala & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr ., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2913 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that vague, general, and omnibus allegations against parents-in-law, without specific particulars as to time, place, or overt acts, cannot form the basis for prosecution under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that mere naming of family members in a matrimonial dispute, without attributing a distinct and active role in the alleged acts of cruelty or dowry demand, does not disclose a prima facie offence and continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It was further held that in the absence of specific instances demonstrating cruelty or unlawful demand, relatives who were not directly involved in the matrimonial life of the complainant cannot be mechanically roped into criminal prosecution. In the present case, the record reveals that the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand are general in nature and no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners, who are the parents of the accused, and it is not in dispute that they were residing separately and never lived with the complainant in the matrimonial home. In the present case, the record reveals that the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand are general in nature and no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioners, who are the parents of the accused, and it is not in dispute that they were residing separately and never lived with the complainant in the matrimonial home. Such allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC insofar as the petitioners are concerned. 9. Further, in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down illustrative categories wherein the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice, including cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offence or are manifestly attended with mala fide intent. 10. Applying the principles enunciated in Bhajan Lal supra to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that prosecuting the petitioners based on vague and omnibus allegations, without any specific material or overt act and despite their separate residence, would amount to abuse of the process of law and warrants interference. 11. It is also relevant to mention that the learned Magistrate, without recording satisfaction and assigning reasons, took cognizance and issued summons on 22.01.2022, which is contrary to the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Bharati Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation , (2015) 4 SCC 609 12. On both the aforesaid grounds and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.858 of 2021 on the file of the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any observations made in this order are confined only for the purpose of deciding the present case. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.