ORDER : JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 9 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.791 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 498-A, 420, 504 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘the Act’). 02. Heard Ms.Meghana Addla Suneel, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Even after service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the record. 03(a). In brief, the case of the prosecution is that, in the year 2013, the petitioner-accused No.1 was introduced to the respondent No.2 through common friends and represented that he was working as an Interior Designer with “Figure-3 Company”, Madhapur. In December 2013, the respondent No.2 commenced an interior designing enterprise under the name “Esha Interior Company”, operating from her residence, and thereafter engaged the petitioner-accused No.1 as an employee, entrusting him with site-supervision duties and access to the company’s bank accounts for net- banking operations. During 2014, the firm secured several projects, and for business purposes the respondent No.2 purchased a Verna car. In the course of their association, the petitioner-accused No.1 developed a close relationship with the respondent No.2, and both of them frequently moved together. In 2015, the petitioner-accused No.1 purchased a sports bike worth Rs.16,00,000/-, purportedly for business expansion, and on 19.08.2018 they established an office at Kaveri Hills, Madhapur. 03(b). In 2021, when the respondent No.2 received a marriage proposal from a person residing in Australia, the petitioner-accused No.1 persuaded her to decline the proposal, proposing his love and intention to marry her. It is alleged that he thereafter changed his name to “Abhiram”, converted to Hinduism, and their marriage was performed on 27.10.2021 at Western Mindspace, Raheja IT Park, with the consent of both families. At the time of marriage, it is alleged that the parents of the respondent No.2 paid 1½ kg of gold and Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry pursuant to the demands of the petitioner-accused No.1 and his family members. At the time of marriage, it is alleged that the parents of the respondent No.2 paid 1½ kg of gold and Rs.20,00,000/- as dowry pursuant to the demands of the petitioner-accused No.1 and his family members. After marriage, the petitioner-accused No.1 represented that the respondent No.2 should take rest and that he would manage the business; believing the same, she handed over the control and management of the firm to him. 03(c). In November 2022, the respondent No.2 noticed a tattoo on the hand of the petitioner-accused No.1 bearing the name “Ifra Hasan” i.e. the petitioner-accused No.8. On being questioned, he stated that it was the name of his grandmother, and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 supported his explanation. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 came to know that the petitioner-accused No.1 had been maintaining an intimate relationship with the petitioner- accused No.8 prior to and even after marriage. She visited the residence of the petitioner-accused No.8, met her and her mother i.e. the petitioner-accused No.9, and warned them to discontinue the relationship. When confronted, the petitioner-accused No.1 allegedly began harassing the respondent No.2 and insisted on divorce. On 13.12.2021, when certain gifts addressed to the petitioner-accused No.1 from the petitioner-accused No.8 were found, he is alleged to have assaulted the respondent No.2 by slapping her, while the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 abused and harassed her, demanded her conversion to Islam, and compelled her to agree for divorce. 03(d). It is further alleged that, on 24.12.2021, the petitioner-accused No.1 left the matrimonial home without informing the respondent No.2 and stayed at “BL Plus, Hitech City”, along with the petitioner-accused No.8 from 14:50 to 21:50 hours, and upon being questioned he confessed that both had conspired to cheat the respondent No.2 and misappropriate company funds, and that his marriage with her was only a façade to facilitate such fraudulent acts. It is also alleged that the petitioner-accused Nos.2 to 7 continuously humiliated the respondent No.2 on religious grounds, demanded additional dowry, insisted on her conversion to Islam, and instigated the petitioner- accused No.1 to ill-treat her, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents. On verification of the bank accounts, she allegedly discovered several financial irregularities and misappropriations committed by the petitioner-accused No.1 over the preceding seven months. On the basis of these allegations, the present complaint came to be lodged against the accused persons. 04. On verification of the bank accounts, she allegedly discovered several financial irregularities and misappropriations committed by the petitioner-accused No.1 over the preceding seven months. On the basis of these allegations, the present complaint came to be lodged against the accused persons. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences and that they never subjected the respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 are the mother-in-law, father- in-law, sisters-in-law, co-sister, brother-in-law of the respondent No.2, and that the petitioner-accused No.8 is the person with whom the petitioner-accused No.1 allegedly had illicit relationship and that the petitioner-accused No.9 is the mother of the petitioner-accused No.8. It is further submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 9 never harassed the respondent No.2, and that they never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between the respondent No.2 and petitioner-accused No.1. The petitioners have never made any demand for dowry from the respondent No.2. The petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 had obtained divorce by mutual consent vide Order dated 12.08.2023 passed in FCOP No.743 of 2022 by the learned Additional Family Court-cum-II Additional District Court at Medchal-Malkajgiri at Medchal. There are no specific or substantive allegations against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offences. Hence, she prayed for the quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 05. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners, 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. Having heard both sides and upon a careful perusal of the charge sheet, it evident that the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 7 are the mother-in-law, father-in-law, sisters-in-law, co-sister and brother-in-law of the respondent No.2. The petitioner-accused No.8 is the woman with whom the petitioner-accused No.1 is alleged to have maintained an intimate relationship, and the petitioner-accused No.9 is the mother of the petitioner-accused No.8. The petitioner-accused No.8 is the woman with whom the petitioner-accused No.1 is alleged to have maintained an intimate relationship, and the petitioner-accused No.9 is the mother of the petitioner-accused No.8. The record further discloses that the petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent vide Order dated 12.08.2023 passed in F.C.O.P. No.743 of 2022 by the learned Additional Family Court-cum- II Additional District Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri, at Medchal. The present crime, however, was registered on 28.02.2022. A perusal of the order dated 12.08.2023 indicates that the parties have recorded an understanding that they shall not file any future proceedings against each other for any reliefs. Nonetheless, there is no reference to any undertaking or understanding in respect of the present criminal case. 07. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 the Honourable Supreme Court of India 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. 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. 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 . 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. 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. 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.” 08. Except for certain general and omnibus allegations that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 abused the respondent No.2, demanded dowry, insisted upon her conversion to Islam, and supported the petitioner-accused No.1, no specific dates, instances, or overt acts have been attributed to any of them individually. The allegations are broadly worded and lack the particulars necessary to constitute the ingredients of the alleged offences. In the present case, this Court finds that no distinct or identifiable role has been attributed to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 9, and the allegations against them are general in nature. The gravamen of the accusations, particularly those relating to financial misappropriation, deceit, breach of trust, and marital misconduct, is primarily directed against the petitioner-accused No.1. The material placed on record does not disclose sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 9. 09. 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.2 to 9 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.2 to 9 are liable to be quashed. 10. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 9 in C.C.No.791 of 2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Medchal, are hereby quashed. 11. Insofar as the petitioner-accused No.1 is concerned, the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this Order, and to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. However, the personal appearance of the petitioner-accused No.1 before the learned trial Court shall stand dispensed with, except when his presence is specifically required during the course of the trial, subject to the condition that he shall be duly represented by his learned counsel on each and every date of hearing. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.