ORDER : JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.21 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District at Bhongir. The offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No.1 are under Sections 498-A, 506 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, “the Act”), while the accused Nos.2 to 5 are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 494 read with Section 109 of IPC and Section 4 of the Act. 02. Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Saleha Begum, learned Legal Aid counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. Perused the record. 03. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the petitioner-accused No.1 and the respondent No.2 was a love marriage solemnized on 06.02.2008, and they were blessed with two children. It is alleged that thereafter the accused No.1 developed an illicit relationship with accused No.6, and the accused Nos.2 to 5 supported the accused No.1. On account of the same, the respondent No.2 filed a case against them in the year 2016 vide Crime No.03 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further alleged that in the year 2018, the accused Nos.1 to 5 promised to take care of the respondent No.2 and took her back to her matrimonial home, where accused No.1 and respondent No.2 lived happily till 2019. It is further alleged that thereafter accused Nos.1 to 5 again demanded the respondent No.2 to bring dowry of Rs.10 lakhs and one acre of land, assaulted her, drove her out of the house, and threatened to kill her and her children. It is alleged that the respondent No.2 placed the matter before the elders; however, the accused Nos.1 to 5 did not heed their advice, and since then the respondent No.2 has been residing at her parents’ house. It is alleged that the respondent No.2 placed the matter before the elders; however, the accused Nos.1 to 5 did not heed their advice, and since then the respondent No.2 has been residing at her parents’ house. It is further alleged that in the year 2020, with the support of accused Nos.2 and 5, accused No.1 contracted a second marriage with accused No.6 without obtaining a divorce from respondent No.2, and accused No.6 was blessed with a male child. It is further alleged that a panchayat was held, and before the elders, accused Nos.1 to 5 admitted that they had performed the marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.6, and accused No.6 also admitted that she was aware that it was accused No.1’s second marriage. Based on these allegations, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint for the above alleged offences. 04. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences and that they never subjected respondent No.2 to any form of harassment. It is submitted that the petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband, the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1 and the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters of accused No.1. It is further submitted that petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 never harassed respondent No.2, and that petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 never interfered in the matrimonial affairs between respondent No.2 and petitioner- accused No.1. It is contended that the petitioners have never made any demand for dowry from respondent No.2 and that there are no specific or substantive allegations against them. 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, learned counsel prayed for quashing the proceedings against petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5. 05. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another , AIR 2025 SUPREME COURT 173 wherein 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. 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. 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 . 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. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case. 31 . 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.” 06. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 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. 07. A bare perusal of the contents of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioner–accused No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2; the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law, aged about 70 and 74 years respectively; and the petitioners- accused Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters-in-law of the respondent No.2. Upon a careful scrutiny of the entire material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged parents and that the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are married sisters of the accused No.1. Upon a careful scrutiny of the entire material placed on record, it is evident that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged parents and that the petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are married sisters of the accused No.1. However, the charge sheet is conspicuously bereft of any specific details, descriptive particulars, or overt acts attributing harassment or cruelty to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 so as to disclose their involvement in the alleged offences. The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 appears to have been married and living along with their families separately from the accused No.1 and the respondent No2. The overall tenor of the allegations indicates that the respondent No.2 is primarily aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioner-accused No.1, namely, his alleged illicit intimacy with the accused No.6 and his alleged marriage with her during the subsistence of the first marriage. 08. A further scrutiny of the charge sheet reveals that the police have examined only six witnesses, of whom three are the respondent No.2 and her parents, who are admittedly interested witnesses; two are panchayath elders; and the remaining witness is the Investigating Officer. Although certain allegations of physical harassment have been made, there is no medical evidence whatsoever to substantiate the same. 09. It is well settled that vague and omnibus allegations arising out of matrimonial discord, if not subjected to strict judicial scrutiny, may result in misuse of the criminal process and encourage arm-twisting tactics by a spouse or her family. At times, Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is invoked not on the basis of genuine grievances but to exert undue pressure on the husband and his relatives to accede to unreasonable demands. Therefore, the Courts are duty-bound to examine whether a prima facie case is made out against each accused before permitting prosecution. In the present case, except for bald, general, and sweeping allegations, no specific or substantive accusation is made against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5. The charge sheet does not attribute even a single definite instance of cruelty, harassment, or any specific demand for dowry to them. In the absence of any cogent material or particularised allegations, subjecting the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 to the rigours of a criminal trial would be wholly unjustified and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. In the absence of any cogent material or particularised allegations, subjecting the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 to the rigours of a criminal trial would be wholly unjustified and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the above decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 are liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is partly allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.21 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yadadri-Bhuvanagari District at Bhongir, are hereby quashed. 12. 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 same 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 directed or 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. In the event of non-appearance of the petitioner-accused No.1 on any specific date fixed by the learned trial Court for his appearance, this Order dispensing with his personal appearance shall stand vacated automatically. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.