1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No. 9340 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 and 3, being the parents of Accused No. 1, and are charged with offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”).

3. Heard Mr. S. Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr. K. Pradeep Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4.1. The petitioners contend that the marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1 was solemnised on 15.04.2013. Owing to subsequent matrimonial discord, the spouses began living separately, leading to disputes between them. In this backdrop, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint making allegations not only against her husband but also against his family members, including the present petitioners (accused Nos.2 and 3).

               4.2. It is the case of the petitioners that prior to the filing of the charge sheet the parties had entered into an amicable settlement and initiated proceedings for mutual divorce in FCOP No.3226 of 2021 before the Family Court at Chennai. As per the terms of settlement, accused No.1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards full and final settlement, out of which Rs.5,00,000/- was paid. However, despite accepting part of the settlement amount, respondent No.2 allegedly failed to adhere to the agreed terms and continued with the criminal proceedings. The petitioners assert that they were never involved in any acts of cruelty and have been falsely implicated due to the matrimonial disputes between the spouses.

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations in the complaint are vague, omnibus, and devoid of specific particulars. No distinct overt acts, dates, or instances of harassment have been attributed to the petitioners. It is further contended that the spouses have been living separately for a considerable period, thereby negating any possibility of continued harassment by the petitioners. The continuation of criminal proceedings, despite partial settlement, is alleged to reflect mala fide intent and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

               5.2. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, wherein it was held that relatives of the husband should not be subjected to criminal prosecution on the basis of general and omnibus allegations without specific attribution. It is thus argued that even if the allegations are taken at face value, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, warranting quashment of proceedings.

6.1. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the petition, contending that the complaint discloses serious allegations including dowry demands and harassment. It is submitted that substantial dowry, including cash and gold, was given at the time of marriage. It is further alleged that accused No.1 was incapable of consummating the marriage, a material fact deliberately suppressed prior to marriage. After marriage, respondent No.2 was allegedly subjected to mental harassment and financial instability, both in India and in Australia.

               6.2. The respondent further contends that the petitioners, along with accused No.1, made repeated demands for additional dowry, including substantial financial contributions towards the purchase of property. It is also alleged that respondent No.2 was subjected to continuous mental and physical harassment, coercion, and improper conduct by the family members. Due to persistent cruelty, she was compelled to lodge a complaint, leading to registration of the crime and filing of the charge sheet.

               6.3. It is further argued that although a settlement was entered into, the accused failed to comply fully with its terms, having made only part payment. The respondent asserts that the petitioners have suppressed material facts and approached the Court with unclean hands. It is contended that the issues involved are disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated during trial and not in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

7. Upon consideration of the submissions and material on record, it is evident from the FIR that allegations have been made regarding dowry demands, including Rs.10,00,000/- and 40 tulas of gold at the time of marriage, as well as subsequent demands for additional amounts. Allegations also include mental and physical harassment, improper conduct by the father-in-law, coercion by the mother-in-law, and pressure relating to IVF treatment.

8. At the outset, it is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law or where no prima facie offence is made out. The guiding principles have been authoritatively laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which enumerates categories of cases where quashing is justified.

9. In the instant case, the allegations, taken at face value, prima facie, insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the allegations appear to be general and omnibus in nature, lacking specific details or distinct overt acts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, has reiterated that indiscriminate implication of relatives in matrimonial disputes must be discouraged. Similarly, in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Court cautioned against misuse of Section 498-A IPC and emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of allegations against extended family members.

10. The admitted fact in the present case is that, the spouses have been living separately for a considerable period, coupled with the existence of a settlement (albeit partially complied with), indicate that the dispute is predominantly matrimonial in nature with civil overtones. The allegations against the petitioners lack specificity and fall within the category of vague and generalized accusations, as cautioned against in the aforementioned judgments.

11. Therefore, applying the settled principles of law, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law. The disputed issues relating to settlement and its compliance cannot, by themselves, justify continuation of criminal prosecution against the petitioners in the absence of specific allegations.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners (accused Nos.2 and 3) in C.C. No. 9340 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed, to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process of law.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.