ORDER : J.SREENIVAS RAO, J. 1. This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.104 of 2021 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, (SCs/STs) Court at Karimnagar, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the D.P. Act’) and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act 2015) (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The case of prosecution in brief is that respondent No.2, who belongs to Madiga (SC) community, worked as a Computer Operator in the office of Provident Fund at Singareni Coal Mines, Godavarikhani, on contract basis. She got acquainted with accused No.1 at work, who belongs to Settibalije (BC-B) community. Later they fell in love and got married on 24.01.2009 at Hyderabad, against the wish of their family members, as they belong to different caste. Their marriage was registered at Sub Registrar's office at Peddapalli in the presence of both the families. After one year of their marriage, accused No.1 started insulting respondent No.2 saying that fascination is over on her and he is getting irritated and if he had married someone from his caste, he would have got Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry. Every day accused No.1 abused respondent No.2, kicked her with legs and tortured her mentally and physically for additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a daughter and son. Respondent No.2 expected some change in the attitude of accused No.1 but he continued to harass her. Later, accused No.1 lost his job, as he was involved in a criminal case. He left to his native village at Kothagundam and started working as Security Guard in S & PC Department. Accused No.1 harassed respondent No.2 to come to Kothagudam. Due to unbearable harassment, she left her job at Godavarikhani and joined accused No.1 along with her children. There she lived along with the petitioners in the same house. It is alleged that the petitioners supported accused No.1 in harassing respondent No.2. Accused No.1 continued to harass her by demanding Rs.2,00,000/- and beat her and later necked her out of the house and since then respondent No.2 has been residing with her parents. There she lived along with the petitioners in the same house. It is alleged that the petitioners supported accused No.1 in harassing respondent No.2. Accused No.1 continued to harass her by demanding Rs.2,00,000/- and beat her and later necked her out of the house and since then respondent No.2 has been residing with her parents. Hence, she lodged the complaint and based on the same, Crime No.283 of 2019 was registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC, Section 4 of the D.P. Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed charge sheet and the learned Sessions Judge, took cognizance of the same and numbered it as S.C.No.104 of 2021. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners through video conference submitted that pursuant to the order, dated 25.11.2022, he sent personal notice to respondent No.2 by way of registered post with acknowledgment due and filed proof of service vide USR No.1224 of 2023 on 04.01.2023. Along with the memo, learned counsel has filed postal track consignment. Hence, this Court recorded the service of notice on 27.12.2023. In spite of service, respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. Hence, this Court is not having any option except to proceed with this matter on merits. 4. Heard Sri N.Mohan Krishna, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State. 5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offences and they were falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that petitioner No.1/accused No.2 is brother of accused No.1 and petitioner No.2/accused No.3 is paternal uncle of accused No.1. He further submitted that the petitioners never lived with accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The marriage of respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was performed as long as in the year 2009 and they are living separately. The petitioners never harassed respondent No.2 for dowry and they never abused her in the name of caste. 5.2 He further submitted that the only allegation made against the petitioners is that they were supporting accused No.1 and the entire allegations are leveled against accused No.1 only. Even according to the complaint, the alleged incident has occurred within the four corners of the house of accused No.1, which does not fall within the ambit of public view. 5.2 He further submitted that the only allegation made against the petitioners is that they were supporting accused No.1 and the entire allegations are leveled against accused No.1 only. Even according to the complaint, the alleged incident has occurred within the four corners of the house of accused No.1, which does not fall within the ambit of public view. Therefore, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the Act are not attracted against the petitioners. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law. 5.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: i) D ara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another (2025) 3 SCC 735 ; and ii) Karuppudayar v. State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 215 6. Per Contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific allegations leveled against the petitioners to attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498A, 506 read with 34 of the IPC, Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of the Act. Whether the petitioners have committed the offences or not, has to be revealed after full-fledged trial before the trial Court. Basing on the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are not entitled to seek for quashing 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 marriage was performed with accused No.1 on 24.01.2009 at Hyderabad and respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on 06.07.2019. Basing on the same, Crime No.283 of 2019 was registered and the Investigating Officer after recording the statements of the witnesses filed a final report before the learned V Additional District and Sessions Court (SCs/STs) at Karimnagar, and the said Court has taken cognizance and issued summons to accused Nos.1 to 3. After perusal of the complaint, statements of the witnesses and final report, it reveals that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the only allegation against them is that petitioner No.1, who is brother of accused No.1, and petitioner No.2, who is paternal uncle of accused No.1, have supported accused No.1. After perusal of the complaint, statements of the witnesses and final report, it reveals that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and the only allegation against them is that petitioner No.1, who is brother of accused No.1, and petitioner No.2, who is paternal uncle of accused No.1, have supported accused No.1. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint as well as the final report, the alleged incident of abusing the de-facto Complainant in the name of her caste has occurred in de-facto complainant’s maternal home. Respondent No.2 has also not specified about the words uttered by the petitioners. Even according to the final report, no eye witnesses were present at the time of alleged incident. It is not the case of respondent No.2 that there was any member of the public at the time of incident in the said place except LWs. 2 and 3, who are parents of LW1, LW4, who is brother of LW1, and LW5, who is neighbour of LWs.2 and 3. 8. Taking into consideration the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet, it reveals that the essential ingredient of the offences namely that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. 9. In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another (2020) 10 SCC 710 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the alleged abusive words were uttered inside a private premises with no public present, the mandatory requirement of “public view” is not satisfied. Similarly, in Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare and another v. State of Maharashtra 2005(3) SCC OnLine Bombay 574 , the Bombay High Court held that an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is not made out where the FIR does not allege that the purported insult occurred “within public view,” and clarified that this ingredient requires both a place accessible to the public and the presence of members of the public, who could see or hear the alleged act. 10. In Sandhya Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and another , 2025 SCC OnLine All 1512 the Allahabad High Court observed that for an offence under the SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult must be caste-specific, intentional, and made in a place within public view. 11. 10. In Sandhya Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and another , 2025 SCC OnLine All 1512 the Allahabad High Court observed that for an offence under the SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult must be caste-specific, intentional, and made in a place within public view. 11. In Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of U.P. , (2023) 17 SCC 615 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult must be caste-specific, intentional, and made in a place within public view. Since the alleged abuse occurred in a private setting without reference to caste or public presence, the essential ingredients of the offence were missing. 12. In Karuppudayar supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, the FIR must disclose that the alleged insult or abuse occurred “in any place within public view”, and where the allegations indicate that the incident took place within the confines of an office without public presence, the continuation of proceedings would fall within category (1) of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 13. In the present case, even if the allegations are taken at face value, they do not disclose that the alleged caste-based abuses were made “in any place within public view,” as mandatorily required under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. The complaint indicates that the alleged abuses arose out of a matrimonial dispute and were purportedly made within the confines of the matrimonial home at Kothagudem. There is no averment made in the complaint that any public was present or that the alleged words were uttered at a place accessible to the public. Even otherwise, the alleged caste-based abuse is attributed exclusively to accused No.1. The petitioners were residing separately and there is no specific allegation against them that they uttered any caste-related words or were otherwise involved in the alleged incident. The allegations are thus confined to a private setting and lack the essential ingredient of “public view,” as explained in Karuppudayar supra , Hitesh Verma supra , Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare supra , Sandhya Dwivedi supra and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya supra and the invocation of the provisions of the SCs/STs (POA) Act in the present case is unsustainable. 14. The allegations are thus confined to a private setting and lack the essential ingredient of “public view,” as explained in Karuppudayar supra , Hitesh Verma supra , Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare supra , Sandhya Dwivedi supra and Ramesh Chandra Vaishya supra and the invocation of the provisions of the SCs/STs (POA) Act in the present case is unsustainable. 14. In Dara Lakshmi Narayana supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, holding that vague and omnibus allegations against relatives residing separately, without specific attribution of overt acts and attended by indications of a retaliatory or mala fide prosecution, constitute an abuse of process, attracting category (7) of Bhajan Lal supra, and warrant interference at the threshold. 15. In Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes cannot be sustained where vague and omnibus allegations are made against several family members, including sisters who were living separately and not part of the matrimonial household, without attributing any specific role or overt act to them. The Court reiterated that merely naming relatives, particularly those residing separately, is insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC, and where no prima facie case is made out, continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, warranting interference by the Court in the interest of justice. 16. The principle laid down in Ghanshyam Soni supra and Dara lakshmi naryana supra is squarely attracted to the present case, as the allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, physical assault and caste-based abuse are attributed exclusively to Accused No.1, namely the husband of the complainant. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, there are only general assertions that Accused Nos.2 and 3 “supported” Accused No.1, without disclosing any specific act, incident, words used, or independent role played by the petitioner. Even during the period when the complainant resided at Kothagudem, no overt act is attributed to the petitioners, and the allegations remain vague and omnibus in nature. The petitioners has thus been arrayed as an accused solely by virtue of her relationship with Accused No.1, and the continuation of proceedings against them, in the absence of any prima facie material, would amount to an abuse of process of law. 17. The petitioners has thus been arrayed as an accused solely by virtue of her relationship with Accused No.1, and the continuation of proceedings against them, in the absence of any prima facie material, would amount to an abuse of process of law. 17. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra, this Court is of considered view that continuation of the proceedings in S.C.No.104 of 2021, on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (SCs/STs) Court at Karimnagar, against the petitioners would amounts to abuse of process of law and it is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 18. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No.104 of 2021, on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, (SCs/STs) Court at Karimnagar, against the petitioners are hereby quashed. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.