( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash all further proceedings in C,c. No. 112of2007on the file of the lll Additionaljudicial Magistrate of First class, Tirupati. The petitioners herein are A-2, A-3 and a-4 in the C. C. They are father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively, of the defacto complainant. The first respondent herein is the complainant. ( 2 ) IT is alleged by the prosecution that marriage between A-1 and defacto complainant was performed on 1/-11 -2004 at Tirupati. At the time of marriage, parents of complainant gave Rs. 50,000/- cash and gold jewellery worth Rs. 50,000/- towards dowry. After the marriage, the couple lived togetherat Tirupati for 12 days and thereafter A-1 left to U. S. A. The complainant also joined A-1 after obtaining passport and visa. For about 2 months, they lived happily and thereafter A-1 suspected fidelity of the complainant and harassed her both mentally and physically and also demanded Rs. 5. 00 lakhs. As both of them could not live together, they returned to India, reached Tirupati on 6-2-2006 and approached an advocate (LW. 6 ). The complainant signed on some papers due to fear. On 8-2-2006, a-1 and complainant appeared before the Lok adalat-cum-Family Court, Tirupati and obtained divorce. Thereafter, A-1 to A-4 along with the complainant went to Chennai Airport to bid see off to A-1 who left to U. S. A. The present complaint was lodged on 18-2-2006. Police registered the case, investigated into and laid charge sheet for the offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 120-B, 343, 506 read with 1091 PC and 3 and 4 of the dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that after obtaining divorce in the lok Adalat, which has become final the present complaint is filed only to extract money; that from the allegations in the complaint no primafacie case for the or fences under Sections 498-A, 420,120-B, 343, 506 read with 109 IPC against the present petitioners and hence continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence, he prayed to quash the impugned proceedings. Hence, he prayed to quash the impugned proceedings. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the for the first respondent contended that by playing fraud, divorce was obtained in the family Court; that fraud unravels everything and that if really she obtained divorce there was no need for her to go to Chennai to give send off to A-1 and so there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. ( 5 ) INHERENT powers under Section 482 cr. P,c. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice. To establish the charge under Section 420 i. P. C. , it must be proved not only that the accused cheated someone, but also that by doing so he dishonestly induced the person who was cheated to deliver any property, etc. A person can be said to have done a thing dishonestly if he does so with an intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. Wrongful loss means loss of property to which a person is entitled while wrongful gain means a gain to him by unlawful means to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. Any unlawful demand by husband or relative of the husband of a woman for property or valuable security is cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. ( 6 ) CRIMINAL Conspiracy as defined under section 120a IPC is when two ormore persons agreed to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B i. P. C. Section 506 I. P. C. provides for punishment for criminal intimation. Under section 503 IPC whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, etc. is criminal intimidation. Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more shall be punished under Section 343 ipc. Under section 503 IPC whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, etc. is criminal intimidation. Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more shall be punished under Section 343 ipc. ( 7 ) IT is alleged that A-1 conspired a plan with A-2 to A-4 over phone so as to discord the complainant and thereupon A-2 to A-4 consulted an advocate (L. W. 6), and that as pertheirdirections A-1 broughtthecomplainant to Tirupati on 6-2-2006 and approached their advocate (L. W. 6) and compelled her to sign on petitions which were already prepared by their advocate. Out of fear, she signed on the papers. Immediately, all the accused shifted her in a car to Tirumala and kept her in vishnupadam guest house. On /-2-2006, the accused brought her to house of kranthichaitanya (L. W. 7), advocate, Tirupati, and compelled and threatened her to sign on same documents and due to fear and warnings given by the accused, she signed on the documents. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision in Neera Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and ohers (2007) DMC 545 wherein it is held as follows: "i consider that the kinds of vague allegations as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of husband cannot be accepted by any Court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charge. " He also relied on a decision in P. 7. Thomas v. Thomas Job 2005 (6) SCJ 146 = (2005) 6 SCC 478 . wherein it is held as follows: (para 24) "the award of Lok Adalat is final and permanent which is equivalent to a decree executable, and the same is an ending to the litigation among parties. " ( 9 ) THE defacto complainant is not an illiterate. She is a graduate in Engineering. She stayed in a guest house one day before the date of dissolution of marriage. Therefore, at that time and while taking her to Lok Adalat bench, she had an occasion to inform the incidents to so many persons. She could as well had occasion to bring to the attention of so many persons if really she was compelled and forced to sign on the papers. Therefore, at that time and while taking her to Lok Adalat bench, she had an occasion to inform the incidents to so many persons. She could as well had occasion to bring to the attention of so many persons if really she was compelled and forced to sign on the papers. Even after bidding see of to A-1 at Chennai air port on 14-2-2006, she admittedly stayed at Tirupati She did not even raise her little finger at any point of time in this period. For the first time she lodged the report on 18-2-2006. Further, as seen from the complaint allegations, the alleged demand was made by A-1 and the money was allegedly entrusted to A-1. The allegation is that all the accused conspired together to discord the complainant and they threatened her. ( 10 ) COMPETENT Civil Court passed adecree of divorce on 8-2-2006. The award became final. It is stated by the accused that she was compelled and threatened and due to fear she appeared before the Lok Adalat. An omnibus allegation is leveled against all the petitioners. So far no challenge was made to the decree of dissolution passed in Lok Adlat. She did not complain to the Lok Adalat bench that she was forced or threatened to sign on some papers or due to fear or threat given by the accused, she agreed for divorce. Even according to the allegations, it is A-1 who allegedly demanded dowry and the amount was paid to A-1 and that it is A-1 who alleged to have suspected character of the defacto complainant and allegedly demanded Rs. 5. 00 lakhs towards additional dowry. As seen from the allegations in the charge sheet, it is A-1 who allegedly brought the complainant to tirupati on 6-2-2006 and compelled her to sign on some papers and that thereafter the accused was brought to house of another advocate. The allegations in the charge sheet are leveled against A-1 and omnibus allegations are leveled against the present petitioners. Even if they are taken as true and correct, they do not make out a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 120-B, 506,343 and 420 IPC against the present petitioners. Therefore, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the present petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Even if they are taken as true and correct, they do not make out a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 120-B, 506,343 and 420 IPC against the present petitioners. Therefore, continuation of the impugned proceedings against the present petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the first respondent relied on a decision in A. V. Papayya sastry and others v. Government of A. P. and others 2007 (3) SCJ 871 = 2007 (4) SCALE 88 wherein it is held as follows: "now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order id obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. " There is no dispute in the proposition of law laid down that when a judgment is obtained by frand, it is nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Except alleging that the decree was obtained by force of by playing fraud, so far the first respondent has not challenged the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the first respondent has no application. ( 12 ) THE Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed quashing the proceedings in C. C. No. 112 of 2007 on the file of the III Additional judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati in respect of the petitioners A-2 to A-4. .