As per case facts, the O.P. No.2's marriage to the petitioners' son in 2006 involved allegations of mental and physical cruelty and dowry demands from the husband and in-laws, despite ... the couple living abroad. The O.P. No.2 also alleged deceptive divorce proceedings in Sweden in 2014. She filed an FIR in 2016 under Sections 498A and 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners, who are aged and unwell, sought to quash the cognizance order, arguing no involvement as they lived separately, and the divorce occurred prior to the FIR. The question arose whether a prima facie case for cruelty and dowry harassment was established against the aged in-laws, who resided separately from the couple and whose son's marriage was dissolved two years before the FIR, based on omnibus allegations. Finally, the Court quashed the cognizance order against the petitioners, finding the allegations were primarily marital discords between spouses living abroad and were general and omnibus for the in-laws, with no independent corroboration. Continuing proceedings against the aged petitioners would constitute an abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.