ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.337/2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 342, 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). 2. Heard Sri. Sanjay Yadav B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The complainant and accused No.1 get married on 12.11.2011. It transpires that the relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant flounders. On floundering of the said relationship, the parties are before the Family Court in MC.No.318/2019. The wife then registers several proceedings including a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The issue in the lis does not pertain to those proceedings between the husband and the wife. The complainant/respondent No.2 registers a complaint on 17.11.2022, which becomes a crime in Crime No.337/2022 for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4. The arraigning of the petitioner as accused No.4 is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the happenings in the family between accused Nos.1 to 3 and the complainant. The petitioner is the younger sister of accused No.2, that is the mother-in-law of the complainant, and does not even reside with the couple. The only allegation against this petitioner in the complaint is that she has orchestrated the behaviour of the husband or members of the family to treat the complainant badly. Barring this, the learned counsel submits that there is no other allegation that would drive home the offences. 5. The complainant though served long ago has remained unrepresented, even today. Therefore, the learned High Court Government Pleader is heard. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader on perusal of the complaint or the material of investigation as was done till the date on which the stay was granted would submit that the investigation must be permitted to be continued against this petitioner as well as there is some material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the affairs of the family of the complainant. Therefore, would seek dismissal of the petition. 7. Therefore, would seek dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record or averment in the petition itself. The entire issue gets triggered by the complaint so registered by the complainant/respondent No.2. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: "To: Sub Inspector, White field Police Station. Subject:- Application to Complaint against my husband Mr. Rajgopal Surath. Respected Sir, I. Mrs Ashwini Surath, currently residing at # 1627, Divyashree Republic of White field, Divyashree Technopark EPIP 560 066, has been repeatedly beaten up, harassed physically, verbally and mentally by Mr Rajgopal Surath who is also residing at the same place since Oct 23. I had already launched one NCR at Whitefield Police Station on the 29 Oct 22 (NCR No. 575/2022). On Monday 13/14 November early morning post 12 am Rajgopal had been drinking and abusing me.. In night me, my daughter and maid went to master bedroom to sleep and Rajgopal went to next bedroom. In night it was very cold, so I got up around 2 am to get extra blanket 'from the room. Rajgopal was awake and browsing phone. Upon seeing me he started abusing me and using smear words. I told him I only came to collect blanker and will leave in a moment. Rajgopal got angree and pulled me down on the floor matters. He started hitting me, slapping me punching me on my shoulder multiple times. He turned me faced down and sat on my back He grabbed my thigh and polled my short pant down and started forcing his private part on me to rape me. During this time, he kept saying I will teach you a life lesson and kill you to pieces and throw it away and no one will know. You pay your dowry which is pending long time. During this he kept on forcing and grabbing me on the floor. When I started calling my maid in scream for help, he loosened up the grip and I pushed him away and rushed to another room and locked the room from inside. You pay your dowry which is pending long time. During this he kept on forcing and grabbing me on the floor. When I started calling my maid in scream for help, he loosened up the grip and I pushed him away and rushed to another room and locked the room from inside. In morning my maid and daughter got up Daughter went to school and Rajgopal locked the room again in morning from outside with extra key. When I got up and could not open the door, I started calling him to come and open, he refused and said until I don't agree to his dowry demand he won't open. Somehow convinced him to open but then he threatened me that if I speak of night events to anyone, he will kill me. He also threatened to hurt and kill my daughter if I try to step out of the house. I stayed inside the house till Thursday morning where he again came and started accusing me regarding dowry in the bedroom. When I said I will go and complain police, he took the pillow and forced it on my face trying to strangulate me. Some how I pushed him away and ran into bathroom. When he left out of the room. I came out and made police call and police came for my rescue. He has been harassing me along with his mother, Vatsala Surath. Sister Mrudula Surath and aunt Aruna Madireddy for years since the start of the marriage. These women keep telling him ideas how to harass me for dowry, and abuse me mentally and physically over the phone. I feel unsafe for my daughter and myself and for our life. I request you to provide me protection and justice I have bruises on my body due to physical violence carried out by Rajgopal on Monday night." 9. A perusal at the complaint would indicate all offences against the husband, mother-in-law or father-in-law. The threatening to kill the wife by the husband or other members of the family is against them. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, what is found in the complaint is as follows: " He has been harassing me along with his mother, Vatsala Surath. Sister Mrudula Surath and aunt Aruna Madireddy for years since the start of the marriage. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, what is found in the complaint is as follows: " He has been harassing me along with his mother, Vatsala Surath. Sister Mrudula Surath and aunt Aruna Madireddy for years since the start of the marriage. These women keep telling him ideas how to harass me for dowry, and abuse me mentally and physically over the phone. I feel unsafe for my daughter and myself and for our life." (Emphasis added) It is the allegation that the petitioner for years since the start of marriage has been tutoring the husband and giving ideas as to how to harass the complainant. 10. Barring this, there is no other allegation against the petitioner, while the allegations galore against accused Nos.1, 2 or 3, as the case would be. Therefore, it would be for them to answer the allegations. Finding no allegation against the petitioner that could touch upon the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498A or even 307 of the IPC, permitting further proceedings would run foul of plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court. I deem it appropriate to quote the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 , wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 20. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by Respondent 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that Appellant 1 harassed her and that Appellants 2 to 6 instigated him to do so, Respondent 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. 21. Further, the record reveals that Respondent 2 on 3-10-2021 left the matrimonial house leading Appellant 1 to file a police complaint on 5-10-2021. When the police officials traced her, Respondent 2 addressed a letter dated 11-11-2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting to close the complaint made by Appellant 1. In the said letter, Respondent 2 admitted that she left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with Appellant 1 as she was talking to a person by name Govindan over the phone for the past ten days continuously. In the said letter, Respondent 2 admitted that she left her matrimonial house after quarrelling with Appellant 1 as she was talking to a person by name Govindan over the phone for the past ten days continuously. She further admitted that Appellant 1 was taking good care of her. She also stated that she will not engage in such actions in future. Despite that, in 2021 itself, Respondent 2 once again left the matrimonial house leaving Appellant 1 and also her minor children. 22. Losing hope in the marriage, Appellant 1 issued a legal notice to Respondent 1 seeking divorce by mutual consent on 13-12-2021. Instead of responding to the said legal notice issued by Appellant 1, Respondent 2 lodged the present FIR No. 82 of 2022 on 1-2-2022 registered with Neredmet Police Station, Rachakonda under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Act. 23. Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that Respondent 2 left the matrimonial house on 3-10-2021 after quarrelling with Appellant 1 with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship with Appellant 1. However, she again left the matrimonial house. When Appellant 1 issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13-12-2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 1-2-2022 by Respondent 2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by Respondent 2 is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with Appellant 1 and his family members. 24. The learned counsel for Respondent 1 State contended that a prima facie case was made out against the appellants for harassing Respondent 2 and demanding dowry from her. However, we observe that the allegations made by Respondent 2 in the FIR seem to be motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate grievance. Further, the allegations attributed against the appellants herein are vague and omnibus. …. …. …. 26. Insofar as Appellants 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. Further, the allegations attributed against the appellants herein are vague and omnibus. …. …. …. 26. Insofar as Appellants 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 Appellants 2 to 6 other than stating that they used to instigate Appellant 1 for demanding more dowry. It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple, namely, Appellant 1 and Respondent 2 and their children. Appellants 2 and 3 resided together at Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh. Appellants 4 to 6 live in Nellore, Bengaluru and Guntur, respectively. 27. 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, Appellants 2 to 6, who are the members of the family of Appellant 1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of Appellant 1 and Respondent 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. In fact, in the instant case, the first appellant and his wife i.e. the second respondent herein resided at Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu where he was working in Southern Railways. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. They were married in the year 2015 and soon thereafter in the years 2016 and 2017, the second respondent gave birth to two children. Therefore, it cannot be believed that there was any harassment for dowry during the said period or that there was any matrimonial discord. Further, the second respondent in response to the missing complaint filed by the first appellant herein on 5- 10-2021 addressed a letter dated 11-11-2021 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirupathur Sub-Division requesting for closure of the said complaint as she had stated that she had left the matrimonial home on her own accord owing to a quarrel with Appellant 1 because of one Govindan with whom the second respondent was in contact over telephone for a period of ten days. She had also admitted that she would not repeat such acts in future. In the above conspectus of facts, we find that the allegations of the second respondent against the appellants herein are too far-fetched and are not believable. 29. We find that the High Court noted that there were also allegations against Respondent 2 and matrimonial disputes are pending between the parties. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion that custodial interrogation of the appellants was not necessary and protected the personal liberty of the appellants directing the investigating officer not to arrest the appellants till the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge- sheet. Albeit the said findings and observations, the High Court ultimately refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellants. 30. The inclusion of Section 498-AIPC 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 498-AIPC 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 scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, 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 498-AIPC 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. 31. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498-AIPC 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 498-AIPC 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. 32. In the above context, this Court in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733, observed as follows : (SCC p. 698, Para 12) “12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.” 33. Further, this Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473 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 scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 34. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned FIR No. 82 of 2022 filed by Respondent 2 was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against Appellant 1 and his family members i.e. Appellants 2 to 6 herein. Hence, the present case at hand falls within Category (7) of illustrative parameters highlighted in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. Therefore, the High Court, in the present case, erred in not exercising the powers available to it under Section 482CrPC and thereby failed to prevent abuse of the Court's process by continuing the criminal prosecution against the appellants.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed and the investigation in Crime No.337/2022 qua the petitioner stands obliterated. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER: (i) Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in Crime No.337/2022 pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bangalore Rural District stands quashed qua the petitioner/accused No.4. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed and the investigation in Crime No.337/2022 qua the petitioner stands obliterated. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER: (i) Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in Crime No.337/2022 pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bangalore Rural District stands quashed qua the petitioner/accused No.4. (iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and would not become applicable to any other accused or influence further proceedings before the concern Court, if any, against any other accused. Ordered accordingly.