ORDER : J.SREENIVAS RAO, J. 1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.298 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodangal, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’). 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 29.06.2024 at 17:00 hours, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that on 09.05.2016, in the presence of village elders, she married accused No.1. At the time of marriage, her parents gave six tulas of gold, Rs.1,50,000/- cash, Rs.73,000/- for a bike, and Rs.40,000/- for household articles. They lived together happily for 11 months and were blessed with a baby girl, who unfortunately died three days after birth. Thereafter, her husband became addicted to alcohol and started harassing her physically and mentally, demanding an additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents. Despite living together, the harassment continued, and on 20.10.2023, he and his family members demanded the additional dowry and expelled her from the house. On 08.11.2023, a panchayat was held at Kondareddypally village, in which her parents and villagers explained that her parents are poor and they were unable to pay any amount and requested him to lead a happy life with the complainant. However, he again demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and continued to harass her. The complainant requested to take legal action against the above-named persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order dated 18.03.2025, personal notice was sent to respondent No.2 by way of RPAD, and the said notice was delivered to respondent No.2 on 03.04.2025. He further submitted that a memo was filed vide U.S.R.No.43560 of 2025, dated 21.04.2025, enclosing the postal track record and registered postal receipts. According to the learned counsel, notice has been duly served on respondent No.2. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 4. Heard Mr.K.Lakshmi Manohar, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. 5. According to the learned counsel, notice has been duly served on respondent No.2. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court has no option except to proceed with the matter on merits. 4. Heard Mr.K.Lakshmi Manohar, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime solely on the ground that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents, and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the brother and sister of accused No.1. He further submitted that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint on 01.02.2024, and the same was referred to the police for investigation. Basing on the same, Crime No.121 of 2024 was registered on 29.06.2024. The Investigating Officer, without conducting proper investigation, filed the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodangal and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same and numbered it as C.C.No.298 of 2024. 5.1. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made either in the complaint or in the final report, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioners. Respondent No.2 has implicated all the family members of accused No.1 by making omnibus allegations, only on the ground that they supported accused No.1. He further submitted that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are senior citizens and are doing agriculture. After the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1, they have been living separately, and at no point of time petitioner Nos.1 and 2 demanded additional dowry or harassed respondent No.2. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are also living separately and never resided with accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Therefore, the question of demanding additional dowry or harassing respondent No.2 does not arise. 5.2. He further submitted that LWs.2 and 3 are the parents of the victim, and LWs.4 to 6 are village elders. Even according to the statements of LWs.4 to 6, there are no allegations against the petitioners regarding demand of dowry or harassment. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law. 5.3. 5.2. He further submitted that LWs.2 and 3 are the parents of the victim, and LWs.4 to 6 are village elders. Even according to the statements of LWs.4 to 6, there are no allegations against the petitioners regarding demand of dowry or harassment. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of law. 5.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of U.P. and another , 2012 (10) SCC 741 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that whether the petitioners have committed the offences or not has to be revealed after full-fledged trial by the trial Court. He further submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioners are disputed question of facts and basing on the same, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint invoking the provisions of Sections 199 and 200 of the Cr.P.C. on 01.02.2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodangal. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate referred the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Pursuant thereto, Crime No.121 of 2024 was registered on 29.06.2024, against the petitioners and accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 109 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report on 16.08.2024, and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said offences and numbered it as C.C.No.298 of 2024 and issued summons to the petitioners. 8. The record further reveals that accused No.1 filed F.C.O.P.No.416 of 2024 against respondent No.2 under Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said F.C.O.P. is pending for consideration. 9. The specific case of the petitioners is that subsequent to the filing of the F.C.O.P. and after receiving summons therein, respondent No.2 filed the private complaint, implicating all the family members of accused No.1 as accused. 10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said F.C.O.P. is pending for consideration. 9. The specific case of the petitioners is that subsequent to the filing of the F.C.O.P. and after receiving summons therein, respondent No.2 filed the private complaint, implicating all the family members of accused No.1 as accused. 10. After perusal of the allegations made in the complaint as well as the final report, including the statements of LWs.4 to 6, it reveals that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the entire allegations are levelled against accused No.1 only. The only allegation against the petitioners is that they allegedly instigated accused No.1 and harassed respondent No.2. Hence, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioners. 11. In Geeta Mehrotra supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, mere casual or omnibus reference to the names of the husband’s relatives in the FIR, without specific allegations or overt acts indicating their active involvement, is insufficient to justify taking cognizance against them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised the tendency to rope in the entire family in such disputes and observed that subjecting such relatives to criminal trial in the absence of concrete allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law and held that the proceedings may be quashed where the FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence, while emphasising the need for a cautious and balanced approach in matrimonial cases. 12. In Sanjay D. Jain and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2090, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against the parents-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant in a case under Section 498-A IPC. The Court held that vague and general allegations are not sufficient to make out an offence of “cruelty” under Section 498-A. It was observed that the allegations must disclose specific acts showing serious cruelty or harassment linked to an unlawful demand for dowry. The Court clarified that mere statements about demand for gifts or general harassment, without details or particulars, do not satisfy the legal requirements of the offence. Continuation of such proceedings was held to be an abuse of the process of law. 13. In State of Haryana v. Ch. The Court clarified that mere statements about demand for gifts or general harassment, without details or particulars, do not satisfy the legal requirements of the offence. Continuation of such proceedings was held to be an abuse of the process of law. 13. In State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down well-settled principles governing the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings. The Court held that proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence. It was further held that where criminal proceedings are initiated on vague or improbable allegations, or where their continuation would amount to misuse of the criminal process, the High Court is empowered to interfere to secure the ends of justice. 14. In the present case, a careful reading of the complaint, the charge sheet, and the statements of witnesses shows that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5. The allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry are mainly directed against accused No.1. The petitioners have been implicated only by making general statements that they supported or instigated accused No.1, without describing any specific act of harassment. Such omnibus allegations do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay D. Jain supra. Therefore, allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioners would fall within the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal supra and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 15. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions as mentioned supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5. 16. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.298 of 2024 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodangal, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.