As per case facts, the complainant filed an FIR under Section 498A and other IPC sections against her step mother-in-law, step brother-in-law, father-in-law, and a Munim, alleging dowry demand, physical ... assault, and threats related to property share. This criminal complaint followed a civil suit filed by her husband regarding ancestral property. The High Court had earlier refused to quash the FIR and chargesheet, stating a prima facie case of cruelty and jurisdiction was established. The appellants appealed, arguing the allegations were vague, omnibus, and an abuse of process stemming from a civil dispute, especially since a Domestic Violence Act case with identical allegations was dismissed by a lower court. The question arose whether the criminal proceedings, based on vague and general allegations intertwined with a pre-existing civil property dispute, constituted an abuse of the legal process and should be quashed, especially after similar allegations were dismissed in a Domestic Violence Act case. Finally, the Supreme Court determined that the allegations in the FIR and subsequent chargesheet were general, vague, and lacked specific details against the appellants. The Court observed a clear civil flavour to the dispute, noting the husband had initiated a separate civil suit concerning property and that the criminal complaint appeared to further the civil interests. Emphasizing the duty of courts to examine complaints carefully for ulterior motives, the Court found the domestic violence complaint with identical allegations had already been dismissed after detailed scrutiny. The Supreme Court concluded that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of law and a travesty of justice, thus quashing the FIR and the chargesheet against the appellants.