ORDER : JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in S.C.No.110 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, registered for the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 02. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused; Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 and Sri V. Venkat Ram Narsaiah, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record. 03(a). The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The complainant-respondent No.2 is the father of Revuri Niharika Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The deceased was married to the accused No.1. The accused No.2 is the mother of the accused No.1; the petitioner-accused No.3 is his sister; and the petitioner- accused No.4 is the husband of the petitioner-accused No.3. The marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1 was solemnized on 14.08.2021 at Paradise Function Hall, Kazipet, in the presence of elders. At the time of marriage, it is alleged that, pursuant to the demands of the accused Nos.1 to 4, the respondent No.2 gave a net cash amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, a plot admeasuring 300 Sq.yds worth approximately Rs.1 crore situated at Julaiwada, Hanamkonda, and gold ornaments weighing about 8 tulas to the accused Nos.1 and 2 as dowry. 03(b). It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards adapaduchu katnam was given to the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4. Subsequent to the marriage, the accused Nos.1 to 4 treated the deceased well for about one year. During this period, the deceased and the accused No.1 were blessed with a female child. About six months prior to the incident, the deceased and the accused No.1 took a house on rent at Bhavani Nagar, Hanamkonda, and were residing there. Thereafter, the accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly started subjecting the deceased to mental and physical harassment, demanding that she bring an additional dowry amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs from her parents, stating that the accused No.1 had incurred hospital expenses towards treatment of their child. The deceased informed the respondent No.2 about the harassment, whereupon her parents visited the house of the accused No.1 and requested the accused Nos.1 to 4 to wait for some time, assuring them that they would arrange the demanded amount. The deceased informed the respondent No.2 about the harassment, whereupon her parents visited the house of the accused No.1 and requested the accused Nos.1 to 4 to wait for some time, assuring them that they would arrange the demanded amount. However, despite this assurance, the accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly continued to harass the deceased for additional dowry. 03(c). It is further alleged that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4, who reside at Prashanthnagar, Hanamkonda, used to frequently visit the rented house at Bhavani Nagar, and, along with the accused No.2, subjected the deceased to harassment. About four days prior to the incident, the accused No.2 came to reside with the accused No.1 and the deceased in the said rented house. During this period, the accused No.2 allegedly called the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 to the house, and all of them harassed the deceased. When the deceased expressed the said grievance to the accused No.1, he allegedly supported the accused No.2 instead of restraining her. The deceased again informed the respondent No.2 about the harassment. Consequently, on 10.05.2023, her parents visited the rented house at Bhavani Nagar, Hanamkonda, and consoled her. On that occasion, the accused No.2 allegedly abused the parents of the deceased in filthy language, upon which they returned to their residence the same day. 03(d). It is alleged that, after their departure, on the night of 10.05.2023, the accused Nos.1 and 2 continued to harass the deceased for additional dowry until about 23:00 hours. Unable to bear the harassment meted out by the accused Nos.1 to 4, the deceased went into her bedroom, bolted the door from inside, and committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan with a cotton saree. On the next day, i.e. 11.05.2023 at about 09:00 hours, when the deceased did not open the door, the accused No.1 knocked repeatedly. On receiving no response, he suspected that she might have committed suicide and informed the house owner. The house owner and a neighbour, along with the accused No.1, broke open the bedroom door and found the deceased hanging from the ceiling fan with a stool beneath her. The accused No.1 immediately informed the respondent No.2 over phone and thereafter absconded from the spot. Upon receiving the information, the parents and relatives of the deceased rushed to the house and found her dead, hanging from the ceiling fan with a saree. The accused No.1 immediately informed the respondent No.2 over phone and thereafter absconded from the spot. Upon receiving the information, the parents and relatives of the deceased rushed to the house and found her dead, hanging from the ceiling fan with a saree. Thereby, the accused persons committed the offence under Section 304B of IPC. 04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offence. It is contended that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized about sixteen years ago, and that they have been residing separately from the accused No.1 and his family members, except for occasional visits to their house on the occasions of family functions. It is further submitted that the deceased was suffering from psychiatric ailments and was undergoing counselling under the care of Dr. Jagadeesh Babu at Jayakrishna Psychiatric Care and Counselling Centre, Hanumakonda, and was also under continuous treatment at Sri Chakra Super Speciality Hospital, Hanumakonda, for more than one year prior to the incident. The deceased was highly sensitive in nature and was suffering from mental disorder. 04(b). It is further submitted that the parents of the deceased, in their statements, have not attributed any specific acts of harassment to the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4. The petitioners have been falsely implicated by the respondent No.2 with a view to exert pressure on the accused persons for settlement of properties in the name of the minor daughter of the deceased. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no incriminating material against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4, and the essential ingredients necessary to constitute the offence under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code are wholly absent insofar as the petitioners are concerned and prayed to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4. 05. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court. 06. 06. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant to extract that Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, which is as under: “304B. Dowry death.— (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation — For the purpose of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” 07. As per the above penal provision, the victim must be a woman and her death must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, i.e. by burns, bodily injury, or in any other abnormal manner. Such death must have taken place within seven years of her marriage. Further, it must be shown that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives in connection with a demand for dowry, and that such cruelty or harassment had occurred “soon before her death”. 08. It is well-settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court is required to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during investigation, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of any offence and make out a prima facie case against the accused. Where the allegations are omnibus, vague, and bereft of specific attribution of acts constituting cruelty or harassment, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 09. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 are residents of Prashanthnagar, Hanamkonda, and were residing separately from the accused No.1 and the deceased. Where the allegations are omnibus, vague, and bereft of specific attribution of acts constituting cruelty or harassment, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 09. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 are residents of Prashanthnagar, Hanamkonda, and were residing separately from the accused No.1 and the deceased. The allegation that they “used to visit the rented house frequently”, coupled with certain omnibus allegations of harassment along with the accused No.2, does not disclose any specific overt acts, dates, instances of cruelty, or any distinct role attributable to them. 10. It is significant to note that, even as per the prosecution case, on the fateful night of 10.05.2023, until about 23:00 hours, it was only the accused Nos.1 and 2 who are alleged to have harassed the deceased for additional dowry, whereupon the deceased went inside the bedroom, bolted the door from inside, and thereafter, on the morning of 11.05.2023 at about 09:00 hours, the accused No.1 and the house owner broke open the door and found that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. 11. For attracting the offence under Section 304B of IPC, the element of cruelty or harassment “soon before her death” is a sine qua non. However, there is not even a whisper in the prosecution material regarding the presence of petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 in the house on 10.05.2023, nor is there any allegation of any act attributable to them proximate to the death of the deceased. Consequently, the "live link" between the conduct of the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 and the death of the deceased is conspicuously absent. There is also no material to show that the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 were residing with the deceased or had any continuing presence in the matrimonial home “soon before the death” of the deceased. Mere bald assertions that the petitioners occasionally visited the house and harassed the deceased, without particulars, corroboration, continuity of dowry-related harassment, or proximity of time to the death, are wholly insufficient to fasten criminal liability under Section 304B IPC. The prosecution material thus fails to establish proximity of conduct “soon before death”, continuity of harassment, or any overt act attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4. 12. The prosecution material thus fails to establish proximity of conduct “soon before death”, continuity of harassment, or any overt act attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4. 12. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that there is no incriminating material whatsoever to indicate that the death of the deceased is attributable to any culpable conduct on the part of the petitioners–accused Nos.3 and 4. In the absence of any cogent, specific, and legally admissible material establishing the essential ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 304B IPC, compelling the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 to undergo the rigour of trial would amount to a sheer abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 is wholly untenable and is liable to be quashed. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 in S.C.No.110 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.