ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 in connection with Crime No. 297 of 2021 of P.S. W.PS, DD, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-a, 406 and 509 of the Indian Penal code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The Case of the de facto complainant is that her marriage was held with A-1 on 25.11.2020 in the presence of family and friends and at the time of wedding, her parents gage jewellery worth about Rs. 10.23 crores approximately and her maternal grand mother and maternal aunt gifted her Rs. 5,00,000/- each and few of her other relatives gave her gifts in the form of cash amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- out of love and affection. There was a puja (Satyanarayana vratham) at her in-laws' house on 26.11.2020 where she received gifts in the form of cash amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- and she handed over her jewellery worth Rs. 10.23 crores approximately and cash of Rs. 22,00,000/- to her mother-in-law for safe custody. Right from the date of her marriage, her husband/A-1 was indifferent towards her and used to consume alcohol and watch TV shows during night and was not keen on spending time with her. On 03.12.2020, she wanted to resume her internship at Apollo hospital but her mother in-law did not allow her to go to the hospital and asked to stay at home. Her father made all the payments for the honeymoon bookings at Udaipur and they stayed there from 09.12.2020 to 13.12.2020 and while returning back, her husband started humiliating her making his intention clear for unlawful material gain from her parents that he was not given any costly car and that her family is a waste on that account. He called her a dog and hit her in the presence of his parents. She had bruises but her mother-in-law did not shop him and moreover, she went to the extent of saying “Oh my son is very strong”. He called her a dog and hit her in the presence of his parents. She had bruises but her mother-in-law did not shop him and moreover, she went to the extent of saying “Oh my son is very strong”. On 14.12.2020, she resumed her internship and that night she used her phone for a short while in the bed room and her husband got extremely impatient and angry and when she was checking messages, he hit his phone to the floor which broke into pieces and shouted at her saying that he wants to divorce her. On 19.12.2020, herself and her husband had an argument on the proposed visit to Goa along with his cousins and friends for the new year and he insisted that his close friend Huzaif Ali Khan would share his bedroom with them to which she refused as it was not appropriate for newly married couple to share a room with a male friend. Regarding that issue, he lost his temper and threatened to divorce her in front of his parents and went to the extent of threatening to pack his clothes and leave the house. Her mother-in-law, instead of correcting her son’s behaviour, shouted at her that it would be better if they take a divorce and snatched her phone and switched it off and threatened not to talk to her parents about this issue. On 25.12.2020, her husband abruptly left her on the road and she was deeply anguished and stayed back at her parents’ house. On the next day morning, her mother-in-law called her and threatened to return back to her in-laws place. During their stay at Goa, after her mother-in-law’s continuous persuasion and assurance that her husband will not share the room with his friend, her husband’s behaviour became unbearable and he constantly humiliated her in front of other members of the group by using derogatory language and called me a ‘Bitch’ in front of his cousins. She felt humiliated as it resulted in insult to her modesty. On 03.01.2021 from the airport itself, her husband asked her parents to pick her up and her brother brought her to her parents' house. She felt humiliated as it resulted in insult to her modesty. On 03.01.2021 from the airport itself, her husband asked her parents to pick her up and her brother brought her to her parents' house. Her matrimonial life has come to an end ail of a sudden on account of such a drastic decision taken by her in-laws based on some false information given by her husband resulting in abandoning her within 40 days of her marriage. Her husband and in-laws asked her to go to her parents' house from the airport and made it clear that she should not even try to come back to their house. 3. Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that a bare reading of the complaint does rot attract any of the offences as alleged and hence, it is prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, submits that now investigation is going on and there are several allegations against the petitioners and unless investigation is conducted the true facts will not come to light and he submits that pima facie all the offences alleged are attracted in this case and at this stage, complaint cannot be quashed. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. is issued to A-1 on 01.04.2021 and A-2 and A-3 on 05.04.2021 and so far three witnesses were examined and it is submitted that investigation is going on and the complaint pima facie attracts the offences alleged and at this stage crime cannot be quashed. 6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, appearing for the second respondent-de facto complainant has filed counter, wherein they have stated that the present petition for quash of the FIR is nothing but a blatant attempt to scuttle the investigation and judicial process. It is submitted that mere denials and counter-facts in petition for quash are not sufficient to upset the investigative process and the legal and constitutional rights of the second respondent. It is submitted that mere denials and counter-facts in petition for quash are not sufficient to upset the investigative process and the legal and constitutional rights of the second respondent. It is submitted that the allegations made throughout the petition that the FIR had been registered and investigation is proceeding at the behest of a relative who is a retired Police Officer of the second respondent is false and it is submitted that petitioners are repeatedly relying on such allegations only to suit their convenience and it is without any shred of truth whatsoever. It is a submitted that the averments made by the petitioners are the defense that may be available to them during trial only. It is submitted that serious allegations are made against one of the relatives of the de facto complainant who has absolutely no role in the entire criminal prosecution. It is submitted that the petitioners deliberately roped him in the alleged transaction with a view to gain sympathy from the Court. There was no proper investigation by the police, the de facto complainant’s brother was constrained to file W.P. 17323 of 2021 before this Court seeking a direction to conduct fair investigation. The petitioners have invented several baseless and unsupported facts with a view to contradict the allegations made by the second respondent. It is further submitted that the allegation that she got separated from the first petitioner from 03.01.2021 is an absolute falsehood. The first petitioner and their family members just left her in airport an later she was not permitted to enter into the matrimonial home. The second respondent gave the complaint in a plain language known to her and there is absolutely no legal advice at any point of time. She was left in the airport on 03.01.2021 and subjected her to humiliation and cruelty, she waited with great patience and was constrained to give report on 27.03.2021. It is submitted that already five months have elapsed and there is substantial progress in the investigation and that the investigating agency could not proceed further due to the non-cooperation of the petitioners. Several witnesses are yet to be examined and due to the pendency of the present criminal petition, the police are not proceeding with the investigation. It is submitted that already five months have elapsed and there is substantial progress in the investigation and that the investigating agency could not proceed further due to the non-cooperation of the petitioners. Several witnesses are yet to be examined and due to the pendency of the present criminal petition, the police are not proceeding with the investigation. It is submitted that the allegations in the complaint are sufficient for initiation of criminal proceedings as contents of the complaint reveal commission of cognizable offences. It is submitted that any interference by this Court at this stage would have an adverse effect on the rights of the second respondent and statutory obligations of the investigating agency and hence, the present Criminal Petition may by dismissed. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (2005) 13 SCC 540 , wherein it is held as under: “Exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers possessed before the enactment of Cr.P.C. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under Cr. P.C., (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possible arise. The Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle of “quando lex aliquid alicul concedit, concedere videtur id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest’ (when the law given a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising the powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers the court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the report, the court may examine the question of fact. When a report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the report has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” Learned Senior Counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and Others, (2009) 1 SCC 516 wherein it is held as under : Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are : (1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. It is furthermore well known that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. The court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the provisions of Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced by Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. One of the paramount duties of the superior courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to persecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint.” Learned Senior Counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728 “Further, the legal position is well settled that if an offence is disclosed the court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima facie, the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. It is also settled by a long course of decisions of this Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se; it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.” Learned Senior Counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj, (1994) 2 SCC 277 . “In the instant case the High Court while interfering at the stage of FIR holding that the FIR did not disclose any offence, as a matter of fact, took into consideration several other records produced by Respondents 1 and 2 and also relied on the affidavit filed by Shri Banerjee and also on a letter written by the Director, State Lotteries. This approach of the High Court, to say the least, to some extent amounts to investigation by the court whether the offences alleged in the FIR are made out or not. In the FIR it is clearly mentioned that a false note was recorded by Respondent 1 with a view to help M/S Om Prakash & Co. and its sister concerns. It is also mentioned in the FIR that the information so far received disclosed that before the agreement dated November 7, 1985 was signed between M/s H.K. Chugh & Co. and the Council, M/s V. Kumar Lotterywala sent a telegram and also complaint alleging malpractices in the awarding of the contract and the same was also sent to the President and Shri B.R. Bajaj. However, even after receiving such a telegram, Shri B.R. Bajaj did not take any steps to stop the loss to the Council because of his deep involvement in the conspiracy and it is also clearly mentioned that the total loss caused to the Council and gain to the accused persons is to the tune of Rs. 1,43,34,000 when compared to the offence made by the highest tenderer M/s Bharat & Co. or at least Rs. 1,13,34,000/- when compared to the next highest tenderer M/s V. Kumar Lotterywala. These are some of the important allegations in the FIR which made out a cognizable offence at the stage and the registration of an FIR is only the beginning of the investigation. That being the case, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the FIR itself when several aspects of the allegations in the FIR had still to be investigated. The learned Judge of the High court while coming to the conclusion that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any offence, has taken into consideration several aspects including the guidelines, normal duty of Shri B.R. Bajaj etc. The learned Judge of the High court while coming to the conclusion that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any offence, has taken into consideration several aspects including the guidelines, normal duty of Shri B.R. Bajaj etc. and when further and investigated whether the offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 418, 468 IPC and Sections 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been made out. Suffice it to say that the learned Judge has treated the whole matter as though it was an appeal against the order of conviction and that should never be the approach in exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. particularly at the stage of FIR when the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence which had still to be investigated thoroughly by police. We do not think that in this case we should make a further detailed consideration about the contents of the FIR. We are satisfied that this is not at all a fit case for quashing the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly the appeal allowed.” 7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire material on record. 8. The allegations in the complaint prima facie attract the alleged offences. FIR is not an encyclopedia. Admittedly, investigation is pending and several things have to come to light At this stage it is not appropriate for this Court to quash the proceedings. 9. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the accused that Police have issued notice under Section 41-A Cr. P.C. but the petitioner’s apprehension is at the behest of complainant they may arrest the accused. This Court finds no force in the apprehension expressed by the learned Senior Counsel. Police, having issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., without obtaining the permission from the magistrate concerned, cannot arrest the petitioners. Hence, police are directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273