JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 385 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. Petitioners herein are arrayed as A.4, A.5 and A.7 in the said case.2. Basing on a report lodged by 2nd respondent-defacto complainant, police registered a case in crime No. 57 of 2015, and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioners herein and others for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 420, 354 IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The allegations, in brief, may be stated as follows. Marriage of 2nd respondent- defacto complainant with A.1 took place on 04.03.2012 in Arya Vysya Kalyana Mandapam, Tirupati as per hindu rites and customs, and Rs. 30.00 lakhs cash and 700 grams of gold jewels were given towards dowry on the demand of A.1 to A.7. A.2 to A.7 celebrated the marriage having knowledge that A.1 is impotent and thereby cheated 2nd respondent- defacto complainant. A.1 did not participate in sexual intercourse with her and used to sleep separately, on the pretext that till he gets H1 Visa, he will not participate in it. Later, A.1 alone went to America leaving her under the care of A.2 to A.7, and they subjected her to physical and mental harassment demanding additional dowry. When her father agreed to give Rs. 5.00 lakhs, A.1 took her to America and subjected her to both physical and mental harassment for want of additional dowry. When a mediation was held, A.2 to A.7 reiterated their demand for additional dowry. When she forced A.1 for sexual intercourse, on 02.09.2015, A.1 admitted his impotency and requested not to reveal the same to anybody. On 03.09.2015, when she was alone in kitchen, A.2 approached her, caught hold of her hand and demanded her to fulfil his sexual desires. Hence, the report. 3. Heard both sides. 4. When she forced A.1 for sexual intercourse, on 02.09.2015, A.1 admitted his impotency and requested not to reveal the same to anybody. On 03.09.2015, when she was alone in kitchen, A.2 approached her, caught hold of her hand and demanded her to fulfil his sexual desires. Hence, the report. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are related to A.1 and admittedly they are residents of Chittoor district, a far away place from the place where A.1 and others are residing; that a perusal of the recitals in charge sheet shows that vague and bald allegations have been made against the petitioners that they demanded additional dowry and subjected 2nd respondent-defacto complainant to both physical and mental cruelty, and absolutely no date or time has been mentioned either in the First Information Report or in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; that apart from the said accusation as against the petitioners, there is no other material that the petitioners are involving in day to day affairs of A.1 and 2nd respondent-defacto complainant. It is his further contention that proceedings against A.1 were quashed by this Court as per order dated 09.04.2019 in Criminal Petition No.9432 of 2018 and the proceedings A.6 were quashed as per order dated 21.04.2017 in Criminal Petition No.1984 of 2017, and the case of petitioners stand on better footing than that of A.1 and A.6. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the quash petition on the ground that there are specific allegations contained in the charge sheet, though omnibus in nature, and contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioners are all disputed questions of fact and the same have to be decided in the course of trial and this is a premature stage where this Court cannot interfere in the matter. 6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. 6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 , wherein the Apex Court held, 'In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.' The above principle is well settled one and there cannot be any dispute with regard to the said proposition of law. 7. Perused the record. The accused are interrelated to each other. A.1 and A.6 are brothers and sons of A.2 and A.3. 1st petitioner/A.4 is younger brother of A.2 and 2nd petitioner/ A.5 is wife of A.4. 3rd petitioner/A.7 is younger brother of A.3. The petitioners herein are residing separately at different places in Chittoor district, whereas A.1 is resident of Uthukottal, Thiruvallore district, Tamilnadu State. A.1 and A.6 are brothers and sons of A.2 and A.3. 1st petitioner/A.4 is younger brother of A.2 and 2nd petitioner/ A.5 is wife of A.4. 3rd petitioner/A.7 is younger brother of A.3. The petitioners herein are residing separately at different places in Chittoor district, whereas A.1 is resident of Uthukottal, Thiruvallore district, Tamilnadu State. They are no way concerned with the day to day affairs of A.1 and 2nd respondent-defacto complainant. A perusal of the recitals in the charge sheet shows that omnibus accusation has been made as against the petitioners that they demanded dowry from 2nd respondent-defacto complainant. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is absolutely no mention as to, on which date the said demand was made and when she was subjected to harassment, and except a vague and bald allegation that they demanded additional dowry, there is absolutely no material to connect the accused with the crime. The petitioners are also distantly related to the accused and not immediate family of A.1, as 1st petitioner/A.4 is younger brother of A.2; 2nd petitioner/ A.5 is wife of A.4 and 3rd petitioner/A.7 is younger brother of A.3. 8. A.1 filed H.M.O.P.No.11 of 2015 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against 2nd respondent-defacto complainant for dissolution of marriage. Vide judgment dated 17.03.2016, the learned Judge passed a decree by dissolving marriage between A.1 and 2nd respondent-defacto complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that 2nd respondent-defacto complainant did not appear on the said date. Though the decree that has been passed is ex parte, 2nd respondent-defacto complainant did not choose to carry the same in appeal or did not file a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 2nd respondent-defacto complainant had already got married by another person by name S.Naidu on 01.02.2017. 10. It is also pertinent to mention here that A.1 filed Criminal Petition No. 9432 of 2018 before this Court and by an order dated 09.04.2019, this Court quashed the impugned proceedings as against A.1. Further, A.6 filed Criminal Petition No. 1984 of 2017 before this Court and as per order dated 21.04.2017 in the said Criminal Petition, the impugned proceedings were quashed as against A.6. 11. Further, A.6 filed Criminal Petition No. 1984 of 2017 before this Court and as per order dated 21.04.2017 in the said Criminal Petition, the impugned proceedings were quashed as against A.6. 11. A perusal of the charge sheet goes to show that the petitioners stand on a better footing with that of A.1 and A.6. Vague and bald accusations have been made as against the petitioners that they demanded additional dowry. In Pritam Ashok Sadaphule and others v. State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under : (paragraph 17). 'We have carefully perused the allegations pointed out by the learned counsel, from the complaint of Respondent 2 Hima Pritam Sadaphule, dated 4.2.2010. There can be no doubt whatsoever, that the allegations leveled against Appellants 2 to 5 do not justify any inference, which would lead to the conclusion, that they could be held responsible, for an offence in the nature of Section 498-A of the Penal Code. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied in accepting the prayer made in the instant appeal, with reference to Appellants 2 to 5, and to order quashing of the first information report dated 6.3.2010, and the proceedings that may have arisen therefrom, including the charge-sheet dated 27.7.2010.' By any stretch of imagination, omnibus accusations which have been made as against the petitioners would not stand, more so, when the case as against A.1 and A.6 has already been quashed. Hence, continuation of impugned proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C. No.385 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati are quashed as against the petitioners/A.4, A.5 and A.7. 12. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.