ORDER : JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J. The Criminal Petition No.12151 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4; Criminal Petition No.12085 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.5 to 7; and Criminal Petition No.11672 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.8, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in S.C.No.433 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri at Kushaiguda (for short, “the learned trial Court”). The offences alleged against the accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 are under Sections 307, 417, 498-A, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, “the Act”), whereas the offence alleged against the petitioner-accused No.8 is under Section 420 of the IPC. 02. Since all the above Criminal Petitions arise out of the very same charge-sheet and the issue involved in all the matters is common, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order. 03. Heard Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel, representing Sri Buyyankar Krishna Karthik, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Bhaskar Rao, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent as well as Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record. 04(a). In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the parents of the respondent No.2-complainant approached one K. Bhavya Reddy for suitable matrimonial alliances. Pursuant thereto, K. Bhavya Reddy introduced one person i.e. the accused No.1. It is alleged that during the marriage negotiations, the accused No.8 the paternal uncle of the accused No.1, participated in the talks and represented that the accused No.1 was a person of good character, while allegedly suppressing and concealing his prior bad habits. It is further alleged that the engagement of the respondent No.2 with the accused No.1 was solemnised on 16.02.2023 at SNR Gardens, Shameerpet, and the marriage was thereafter solemnised at the same venue on 15.03.2023 in the presence of elders from both families. At the time of marriage, on the alleged demand of the accused No.1 and his family members, the parents of the respondent No.2 are stated to have paid dowry consisting of cash of Rs.2 crores, land valued at Rs.3 crores, 2 kilograms of gold, and 5 kilograms of silver, by selling their agricultural property. At the time of marriage, on the alleged demand of the accused No.1 and his family members, the parents of the respondent No.2 are stated to have paid dowry consisting of cash of Rs.2 crores, land valued at Rs.3 crores, 2 kilograms of gold, and 5 kilograms of silver, by selling their agricultural property. It is also alleged that, as per the demand of the accused No.1’s family, the father of the respondent No.2 incurred an expenditure of approximately Rs.60 lakhs towards the engagement and marriage ceremonies. 04(b). After the marriage, the respondent No.2 joined the accused No.1 at the matrimonial home situated at Cherlapally. It is alleged that from the very next day, the accused No.1 subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty by beating her and abusing her in filthy language under the influence of alcohol. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 came to know that the accused No.1 was addicted to various bad habits prior to marriage. Upon checking the WhatsApp messages of the accused No.1, she allegedly discovered that the accused No.1 was maintaining illicit relationships with other women, including the accused No.2 and that due to such relationship the accused No.1 continued to harass her. When the respondent No.2 informed her in-laws i.e. the accused Nos.3 and 4 regarding the said conduct of the accused No.1, they allegedly advised her to adjust and continue the matrimonial life. When she informed the matter to her sister-in-law, the accused No.5, the latter allegedly abused her in filthy language. Thereafter, the accused Nos.3 to 5 are alleged to have subjected the respondent No.2 to further physical and mental harassment and to have taken away her mobile phone to prevent her from contacting her parents. The respondent No.2 thereafter conveyed the issue to her elder sister-in-law i.e. the accused No.6, and her husband i.e. the accused No.7. On checking the mobile phone of the accused No.1, the respondent No.2 allegedly found obscene videos of women, chats, call recordings, and photographs with other women. The parents of the respondent No.2 then discussed the matter in the presence of mediators in an effort to resolve the dispute between both families. 04(c). It is alleged that on 15.04.2023 at about 10:00 hours, the accused Nos.6 and 7 visited the house of the respondent No.2. The parents of the respondent No.2 then discussed the matter in the presence of mediators in an effort to resolve the dispute between both families. 04(c). It is alleged that on 15.04.2023 at about 10:00 hours, the accused Nos.6 and 7 visited the house of the respondent No.2. While the respondent No.2 was narrating the incidents to them, her in-laws allegedly caught hold of her firmly, and the accused No.1 attempted to kill her by pressing her neck, with the accused No.7 allegedly supporting the said act. The respondent No.2 raised alarm and managed to escape, thereafter informed the incident to her parents over phone. It is further alleged that on the previous day also, the accused persons attempted to kill her by pushing her into a lake at Cherlapally. Thus, it is alleged that the accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 417, 498-A and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and the accused No.2 committed the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 109 of the IPC; and accused No.8 committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. 05(a). Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have absolutely no connection with the alleged offences and that they never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It was submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 6 are the mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sisters-in-law of the respondent No.2; that the petitioner-accused No.7 is the husband of the petitioner-accused No.6; and that the petitioner-accused No.8 is the paternal uncle of accused No.1. 05(b). It was further submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 8 never harassed the respondent No.2, nor did they interfere in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner-accused No.1 at any point of time. The petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 8 never made any demand for dowry from the respondent No.2, either directly or indirectly. Learned counsel further contended that there is an unexplained delay of 15 days in lodging the complaint. The present complaint dated 30.04.2023 was filed only as a counter-blast to the complaint dated 29.04.2023 registered as Crime No.515 of 2023, which was lodged by the mother of accused No.1 against the father of the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 384, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC. 05(c). The present complaint dated 30.04.2023 was filed only as a counter-blast to the complaint dated 29.04.2023 registered as Crime No.515 of 2023, which was lodged by the mother of accused No.1 against the father of the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 384, 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC. 05(c). It was also submitted that petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 are aged parents of the accused No.1. The petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 6 are the sisters of the accused No.1, and the petitioner-accused No.7 is the husband of petitioner-accused No.6; all of them are residing separately from the matrimonial home, and no specific or overt acts have been attributed to them in the complaint or the charge sheet. The petitioner-accused No.8, being the paternal uncle of the accused No.1, had merely acted as a mediator for the marriage between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2, and his role concluded with the solemnization of the marriage. 05(d). It was further submitted that the respondent No.2 and her family members, by resorting to threat and coercion, compelled the petitioners’ family to execute a Memorandum of Understanding dated 02.05.2023 and to transfer ten open plots as alleged compensation, obtained original title documents, and got sale deeds executed in favour of third parties, thereby subjecting the petitioners to extortion and unlawful deprivation of property. 05(e). Learned counsel further submitted that there are no specific, substantive, or legally sustainable allegations against the petitioners. The contents of the complaint and the charge sheet, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offences. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would, therefore, amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, he prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent No.2 has filed a counter-affidavit reiterating the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, along with the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2, contended that there are specific and prima facie allegations against the petitioners, which are triable issues. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, along with the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2, contended that there are specific and prima facie allegations against the petitioners, which are triable issues. It was further submitted that the truthfulness or otherwise of the said allegations can be determined only after a full-fledged trial before the competent Court, and on that ground, they prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petitions. 07. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and upon a careful perusal of the charge sheet and the material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 6 are the mother-in-law, father- in-law, and sisters-in-law of the respondent No.2; that the petitioner-accused No.7 is the husband of the petitioner- accused No.6; and that the petitioner-accused No.8 is the paternal uncle of the accused No.1. The record further discloses that the marriage between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was solemnized on 15.03.2023. It is alleged that the accused No.1 subjected the respondent No.2 to physical and mental harassment from the very next day of the marriage. It is further alleged that on 15.04.2023, the accused No.1 attempted to murder the respondent No.2 by catching hold of her neck. A similar allegation of attempt to murder is also levelled in respect of an incident said to have occurred on the previous day i.e. 14.04.2023, wherein it is alleged that the respondent No.2 was pushed into a lake at Cherlapally. The First Information Report in the present case came to be registered on 30.04.2023. Thus, there is a delay of more than two weeks in lodging the complaint before the Police, and no explanation whatsoever has been offered for such delay. It is also significant to note that a complaint was lodged on 29.04.2023 vide Crime No.515 of 2023 by the mother of the accused No.1, who is the petitioner-accused No.3 herein, against the father of the respondent No.2 for the offences under Sections 448, 384, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC, which is prior to lodging of the present complaint by one day. 08. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 & 32 held that: “ 18 . 08. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 the Honourable Supreme Court at Paragraph Nos.18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31 & 32 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. 24 . Insofar as appellant Nos.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 appellant Nos.2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No.1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellant Nos. 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur respectively. 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. 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. 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. 29 . We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC 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 498A of the IPC 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. 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. 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. 32 . We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.82 of 2022 filed by respondent No.2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No.1 and his family members i.e., appellant Nos.2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482 CrPC and thereby, failed to prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” 09. A careful perusal of the record reveals that the grievance of the respondent No.2 essentially stems from the conduct of the accused No.1, who is alleged to have maintained an illicit relationship with another woman, including the accused No.2, and that the principal and substantive allegations are primarily directed against the petitioner-accused No.1 alone. Except for vague, general and omnibus assertions, no specific or distinct instances of cruelty or harassment are attributed to petitioner-accused Nos.3 to 7. The material placed on record are conspicuously silent with regard to the date, time, place or the nature of the alleged acts purportedly committed by the petitioner-accused Nos.3 to 7. Significantly, there are no allegations whatsoever indicating any demand for dowry by the said the petitioners. Though allegations of physical harassment and even an attempt to murder have been made, the charge sheet does not disclose any overt act attributed individually to any of the petitioners. Significantly, there are no allegations whatsoever indicating any demand for dowry by the said the petitioners. Though allegations of physical harassment and even an attempt to murder have been made, the charge sheet does not disclose any overt act attributed individually to any of the petitioners. Further, the investigating agency has not collected any medical evidence or other cogent material to substantiate the said allegations of physical assault or attempt to murder. 10. As regards the petitioner-accused No.8, the sole allegation is that he participated in the marriage negotiations and allegedly suppressed the so-called bad habits of the accused No.1. Even if such allegation is taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, the same does not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, as the essential ingredients of dishonest intention, fraudulent inducement, and resultant wrongful gain or wrongful loss at the inception of the transaction are conspicuously absent. Mere participation in matrimonial negotiations or acting as a mediator, in the absence of specific material demonstrating fraudulent intent, cannot by itself attract criminal liability. In view of the above, the material placed on record does not disclose any sufficient or prima facie grounds to proceed against the petitioner-accused Nos.3 to 8, and continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently cautioned that in matrimonial disputes, there is an increasing tendency to implicate all the relatives of the husband without specific allegations; and that continuation of such prosecution, where the allegations are sweeping and omnibus in nature, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. In such circumstances, exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of BNSS) is warranted to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 8 cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution in the absence of specific and substantive allegations against each of them, and continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 8 are liable to be quashed. 12. 12. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 8 in S.C.No.433 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Malkajgiri at Kushaiguda, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.