1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) by the accused Nos.5 to 8, seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C. No.2120 of 2021 pending on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at LB Nagar, arising out of Crime No.90 of 2021 by the Women police station, Saroor Nagar for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 417, 406, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘the DP Act’).

2. Heard Mr. P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent-State.

3.1. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the marriage between the de facto complainant and accused No.1 was solemnized on 19.05.2019 through the mediation of accused No.6. It is alleged that, at the time of the marriage, the complainant’s family paid substantial dowry, comprising Rs.10 lakhs in cash, 42 tulas of gold, 1.5 kilograms of silver, a Baleno car, two plots, household articles, and other valuables. The prosecution further alleges that accused Nos.5 to 8 induced the complainant’s family to proceed with the marriage by assuring them that accused No.1 would be transferred to Hyderabad, while allegedly suppressing his pre-existing medical condition. After the marriage, the complainant resided with accused No.1 at Mumbai. It is alleged that accused No.1 failed to consummate the marriage and did not show affection towards her, and that he subsequently left her at the matrimonial home. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 8 allegedly subjected the complainant to physical and mental cruelty, harassment, and demands for additional dowry.

3.2. It is specifically alleged that accused No.4 misappropriated the complainant’s gold ornaments within one month of the marriage. The complainant further alleges that she subsequently came to know that accused No.1 was suffering from erectile dysfunction, a condition which was allegedly known to the accused even prior to the marriage but was intentionally concealed from her and her family. She further alleges that the accused threatened her with consequences if she disclosed the said condition and that accused No.3 assaulted and intimidated her. It is also alleged that, during a panchayat held on 24.01.2021, all the accused abused and threatened the complainant and her family members. Based on the complaint, a crime was registered and, upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid against accused Nos.1 to 8 on the basis of the material collected during the course of investigation. 4.1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.5 to 8 contended that the petitioners are merely relatives or persons connected with the marriage and had no role in the matrimonial life of the de facto complainant and accused No.1. It was submitted that petitioner No.1/accused No.5 is the brother-in-law of accused No.1; petitioner No.2/accused No.6 is the marriage mediator and a relative of both families; petitioner No.3/accused No.7 is the maternal uncle of accused No.1; and petitioner No.4/accused No.8 is the wife of the elder paternal uncle of accused No.1.

4.2. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated only with a view to exert pressure on accused No.1 and to compel him to accede to the complainant’s demands. According to the petitioners, the matrimonial dispute arose primarily because the complainant insisted that accused No.1, who was employed as AGM-HR with IDBI Bank at Mumbai, should secure a transfer to Hyderabad. As the transfer could not be obtained immediately, a misunderstanding allegedly arose between the spouses, resulting in the filing of the present case with false allegations against all the relatives. 4.3. The petitioners further contend that the marriage was consummated and that the allegation concerning the alleged erectile dysfunction of accused No.1 is false and unsupported by any medical evidence. It is their case that the criminal proceedings are essentially an outcome of matrimonial discord and monetary demands raised during settlement negotiations. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 is a medical practitioner residing at Kamareddy, while the other petitioners reside separately and are engaged in their respective occupations. According to the petitioners, none of them interfered in the matrimonial affairs of the spouses or subjected the complainant to cruelty, harassment, or demands for dowry. The allegations against them are therefore contended to be vague, omnibus, and devoid of any specific overt acts.

4.4. Learned Counsel further argued that, even if the allegations contained in the complaint and charge sheet are accepted in their entirety, they do not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners. It was also contended that the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in a mechanical manner, relied principally upon interested witnesses without examining independent witnesses, and filed the charge sheet without proper verification of the allegations. On these grounds, it was argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law and that the proceedings are therefore liable to be quashed.

5.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the complaint, FIR, and charge sheet disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners. It was submitted that, upon consideration of the statements of the de facto complainant and other material witnesses, together with the documentary material collected during the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 8. It is contended that the prosecution material discloses that substantial amounts of cash, gold, silver, and other valuables were given as dowry at the time of the marriage. According to the prosecution, the petitioners, being close relatives of accused No.1 and, in the case of accused No.6, the marriage mediator, actively participated in the marriage negotiations and assured the complainant’s family that accused No.1 would be transferred to Hyderabad, while allegedly suppressing his medical condition. 5.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the prosecution case contains allegations that, after the marriage, the complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, harassment, and demands for additional dowry by all the accused, including the petitioners. It is further contended that the allegations against the petitioners are supported by the statements of witnesses and, therefore, cannot at this stage be characterized as vague or omnibus. According to the prosecution, the petitioners’ contentions regarding their separate residence, their alleged non-involvement in the matrimonial affairs, the truthfulness of the allegations, and the alleged defects in the investigation involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore contended that, as the charge sheet discloses prima facie material against the petitioners, there are no grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.

7. The scope of interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is no longer res integra. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and with circumspection, either to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or to determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations. At this stage, the Court is primarily required to examine whether, on the basis of the material collected during the investigation, and if such material is accepted at its face value, the ingredients of a cognizable offence are disclosed. These principles have been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Niharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

8. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that they are merely distant relatives of accused No.1 and, in the case of accused No.6, a marriage mediator, and that they had no substantial role in the matrimonial affairs of the complainant and accused No.1. It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned the Courts against permitting criminal prosecution of relatives of the husband merely on the basis of their relationship with him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that vague and omnibus allegations against relatives who were not members of the matrimonial household, in the absence of specific allegations disclosing their individual involvement in the alleged offences, would not justify the continuation of criminal proceedings. Reference may be made in this regard to Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741; Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599; and Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra).

9. However, the aforesaid principles cannot be applied mechanically in every case merely because the accused are relatives of the husband. The determinative consideration is whether the allegations are merely omnibus and general in nature or whether they disclose specific acts attributable to the individual accused which, if accepted at face value, constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged against them. A careful examination of the complaint and the charge sheet in the present case shows that, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the allegations substantially rest upon their alleged participation in the marriage negotiations and their relationship with accused No.1. The prosecution specifically alleges that the petitioners actively participated in the marriage negotiations and induced the complainant’s family to proceed with the marriage by representing that accused No.1 would be transferred to Hyderabad, while allegedly suppressing his medical condition. The charge sheet further alleges that, after the marriage, the petitioners joined the other accused in demanding additional dowry, subjected the complainant to mental harassment, and threatened her against disclosing the alleged medical condition of accused No.1. It is also alleged that, during the mediation/panchayat held on 24.01.2021, the petitioners abused and criminally intimidated the complainant and her family members. 10. However, a careful scrutiny of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses does not disclose the basis upon which it is alleged that the petitioners were aware of the alleged erectile dysfunction of accused No.1. There is no specific material in the charge sheet indicating that any of the petitioners had actual knowledge of such medical condition prior to the marriage or that they intentionally concealed the same from the complainant or her family. Mere participation in marriage negotiations, or acting as a marriage mediator, cannot, by itself, constitute the offence of cheating in the absence of prima facie material establishing fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.

11. The essential ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC, particularly the requirement of dishonest or fraudulent intention and inducement, are conspicuously absent from the material collected by the prosecution insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. The mere allegation that the petitioners represented that accused No.1 would be transferred to Hyderabad, without material demonstrating that such representation was made fraudulently or dishonestly with the requisite intention at the inception, would not, by itself, be sufficient to constitute the offence of cheating against them.

12. Likewise, insofar as the allegations of demand for additional dowry and harassment are concerned, except for the sweeping allegation that all the accused demanded additional dowry and harassed the complainant, neither the complainant nor the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC specify the date, place, manner, or circumstances in which the present petitioners allegedly participated in such acts. No distinct overt act has been specifically attributed to any individual petitioner. The position is even clearer with regard to the allegation of criminal breach of trust. The charge sheet itself specifically attributes the alleged misappropriation of the complainant’s gold ornaments to accused No.4. There is no specific allegation that the complainant entrusted any property to the present petitioners, nor is there any allegation that any of the petitioners dishonestly misappropriated, converted, or appropriated such property for their own use. The absence of such foundational allegations renders the essential ingredients of the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust absent insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Equally, the allegation that all the accused abused and threatened the complainant and her family members during the panchayat held on 24.01.2021 is general in nature. Neither the complaint nor the statements of the witnesses specify the words allegedly uttered by each petitioner, the particular acts attributed to them, or the nature and manner of the alleged intimidation. Such vague allegations, bereft of particulars sufficient to identify the individual role of each accused, cannot, without more, constitute the alleged offence. 13. The prosecution has placed considerable emphasis upon the statements recorded during the course of investigation. However, a careful reading of those statements reveals that they substantially reproduce the allegations contained in the complaint, without furnishing independent or specific material attributing distinct overt acts to each of the petitioners. Mere reproduction of omnibus allegations by interested witnesses, without particulars identifying the individual role of the accused, cannot cure the inherent vagueness in the allegations.

14. The defence contention that the petitioners reside separately from the matrimonial household may not, by itself, constitute a sufficient ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, when the fact of separate residence is considered along with the absence of specific allegations regarding their individual participation in the alleged offences, the possibility of their implication merely on account of their relationship with accused No.1 cannot be completely ignored. It is also significant that, according to the prosecution itself, the matrimonial discord primarily arose on account of accused No.1’s inability to secure a transfer to Hyderabad. The subsequent allegations against the relatives appear to have been made collectively, without sufficiently delineating the role allegedly played by each individual accused. Criminal liability is personal in nature and cannot be fastened merely on the basis of relationship or association with the principal accused. 15. This Court is conscious of the settled principle that, while considering an application for quashing of criminal proceedings, it cannot embark upon a detailed appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. The Court is equally conscious that, at this stage, the allegations contained in the complaint and the material collected during investigation are ordinarily required to be taken at their face value. Nevertheless, where, even upon accepting the allegations and the material collected during investigation at their face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners are not disclosed, compelling them to undergo a full-fledged criminal trial would itself amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

16. In the considered view of this Court, the material placed on record does not disclose specific and sufficient prima facie allegations constituting the offences alleged against accused Nos.5 to 8. The case therefore falls within the parameters of the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra), particularly the category where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offence alleged against the accused. In effect, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and warrants interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 17. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. 2120 of 2021 on the file of learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at LB Nagar, insofar as the petitioners/Accused Nos.5 to 8 are concerned, hereby quashed. However, it is made clear the observations made in this order or confine to the case of the present petitioners alone shall not influence the trial against the remaining accused. Consequently, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.