ORDER : 1. The 1st petitioner is the mother of the 2nd petitioner. They have been arrayed as the accused Nos. 3 and 4 in C.C. No. 138 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the aforesaid case are the son and husband of the 1st petitioner. 2. The prosecution allegation is that the 1st accused had married the 2nd respondent on 25.10.09 and they resided together at the matrimonial home as husband and wife. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of her failure to comply with the unlawful demands of the accused for money and gold. On the basis of a complaint filed before the Vanitha Cell, a crime was registered. Later, investigation was conducted and final report was laid before the jurisdictional Court for offence under section 498 (A) of the IPC. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the party respondent and also the learned public prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took this Court through the statement of the de facto complainant as well as her parents and it is submitted that the allegations raised against the petitioners herein, who are the mother and sister of the 1st accused are vague. According to the learned counsel, there are ample materials to conclude that false allegations have been raised by the 2nd respondent for the purpose of roping in the petitioners. It is argued that the conclusion arrived at by the Police regarding the involvement of the petitioner is without conducting a proper investigation in the matter. It is further argued that the petitioners had no occasion to stay with the 2nd respondent and her husband at any point of time and hence the allegation of harassment and cruelty is false and concocted. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkand and Another ( 2010 (7) SCC 667 ), it is submitted that there is a growing tendency of implicating the near relatives of the husband and this is one such case. It is finally urged that this is a fit case for invocation of powers under section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. 5. It is finally urged that this is a fit case for invocation of powers under section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent countered the submissions and submitted that prima facie allegations have been levelled in the complaint and also in the final report against the petitioners. It is further argued that this Court will not be justified in meticulously going through the 161 statements of the witnesses and also the various materials produced before this Court to decide whether the powers under section 482 is to be invoked. 6. The learned public prosecutor also placed a catena of decisions to remind this court of the contours of its power under section 482 of the Code. It is submitted that the contentions now raised are in the realm of appreciation of evidence. 7. It is by now settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it, the accusation could be sustained. That is the function of the trial Court. Section 482 of the Code is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short- circuit a prosecution and brings about its closure without a full-fledged enquiry. Though High Court may exercise its power to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the power has be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The interference must be on sound principles and the inherent power cannot be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. 8. After going through the final report and the accompanying materials, I am of the view that this is not a fit case in which, the powers under section 482 can be exercised. I refrain from passing opinion on the merits of the allegations at this stage lest it affect the case of either the prosecution or the accused. 9. It is submitted that the charge has not been framed till date. Section 239 of the Code specifically provides that at the stage of framing of charge, it is obligatory upon the learned Magistrate to hear the prosecution and the accused and if the learned Magistrate considers the Charge to be groundless, he is empowered to discharge the accused after recording his reasons. Section 239 of the Code specifically provides that at the stage of framing of charge, it is obligatory upon the learned Magistrate to hear the prosecution and the accused and if the learned Magistrate considers the Charge to be groundless, he is empowered to discharge the accused after recording his reasons. When alternate and comprehensive remedies are available for the petitioner under the Code, this Court will not be justified in sifting and weighing the materials in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code. 10. I am of the view that the petitioners are to approach the learned Magistrate and advance their contentions at the appropriate state. I find no good reason to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, in view of the fervent submissions advanced by the learned Counsel, the petitioner is permitted to seek for discharge in absentia. If any such application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider and pass appropriate orders on its merits untrammeled by any of the observations made in this order. The petition is disposed of.