ORDER : A.1 to A.9 in C.C.No.786 of 2019 on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them. 2. Respondent No.1 is the State. Respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant. 3. Despite notice being served, none entered appearance for respondent No.2. 4. Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, the learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 - State submitted arguments. 5. Point that falls for consideration is: “Whether institution and continuation of C.C.No.786 of 2019 as against these petitioners is against the principles contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure and abuse of process of Court?” POINT: 6. In C.C.No.786 of 2019 the offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Smt. N.Rani lodged written information on 28.03.2019 and the same was registered as Crime No.80 of 2019 of Vissannapet Police Station. After due investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet before learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru. On 24.08.2019 learned Magistrate took cognizance for the above referred offences and ordered process as against A.1 to A.9. It is then those accused preferred this Criminal Petition. 7. In legal parlance cognizance is taking judicial notice by the Court of law on a cause presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings and determination of the cause judicially. Every Judicial Magistrate, while taking cognizance, has to satisfy himself about the satisfactory grounds to proceed with the case and at that stage the consideration should not be whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. However, there shall be sufficient material prompting the judicial mind to find a prima facie case so as to embark upon further prosecution of the case in accordance with law. In such circumstances, while it is not required to give elaborate reasons for taking cognizance but the Judicial Magistrate must in his order of taking cognizance should indicate the fact that to the facts on record he had applied his mind and he had taken a decision consciously. In such circumstances, while it is not required to give elaborate reasons for taking cognizance but the Judicial Magistrate must in his order of taking cognizance should indicate the fact that to the facts on record he had applied his mind and he had taken a decision consciously. The legal process must maintain procedural fairness as well as substantive fairness vide Rajendra Rajoriya v. Jagat Narain Thapak : 2018 CRI.L.J. 1832 SC. Application of judicial mind with a view to take further action in prosecution is what cognizance is, vide Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V.Narayana Reddy : AIR 1976 SC 1672 . 8. An investigative outcome in the form of a charge sheet without making any reference to the statements of witnesses examined except making an allegation that there is a prima facie case made out as against accused would not justify a Court to take cognizance vide Mohammad Ataullah v. Ram Saran Mahto : (1981) 2 SCC 266 . 9. The above principles of law have eminent application in the case at hand. F.I.R. made allegations as against A.1 to A.9. The charge sheet in its cause title printed the names of A.1 to A.9. In the cause title itself the investigating officer mentioned that A.3, A.5, A.6, A.7 and A.8 are not charged. In the last paragraph of the charge sheet he has mentioned the names of all these accused with their address particulars and stated that during his investigation he found that these accused did not commit any of the alleged offences and they were not even physically present at the time of the alleged crime incident and they are living at different places far away from the scene of offence and no case was made out and the versions of the witnesses did not indicate much against them. Mentioning these details he stated that he is not charging them. Thus, according to the State it intended to continue prosecution only as against A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.9. Explaining these things the investigating officer had also filed a memo before the learned Judicial Magistrate. This charge sheet is completely silent about the divorce proceedings or maintenance case proceedings pending between the spouses. Thus, according to the State it intended to continue prosecution only as against A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.9. Explaining these things the investigating officer had also filed a memo before the learned Judicial Magistrate. This charge sheet is completely silent about the divorce proceedings or maintenance case proceedings pending between the spouses. A reading of the charge sheet would show that the Telugu written information lodged by the victim woman was translated into English and that was printed then the investigating officer states that he examined six witnesses. He then states that A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.9 harassed the victim lady and therefore, they shall be punished. Thus, the charge sheet does not reflect any investigative findings and it simply made allegations that a case is made out. While the conclusions arrived at by the investigating police do not bind the learned Magistrate, the order of taking cognizance by the Magistrate must indicate as to the facts and reasons for which he was inclined to take a decision against the investigating officer’s report. As against those accused against whom the prosecution found no material, if cognizance taking Magistrate believes that he found from the material placed before him a prima facie case as against those accused also he is duty bound to disclose as to what prompted him to take cognizance as against those accused against whom State never intended to continue the prosecution. In the case at hand, using a rubber stamp the learned Judicial Magistrate merely recorded that he took cognizance. He ordered process as against A.1 to A.9. In other words, he ordered process as against those accused who were not charged by the prosecution as well as against the others. His order does not indicate the reasons for issuance of process as against those accused against whom State did not intend to proceed further. His order does not indicate whether he had served any notice to de facto complainant so as to enquire into for a decision as to the need or otherwise of summoning those accused who were not charge sheeted. It is a clear case where without offering any fact and any reason the order of cognizance was made and the order of summoning was passed. Thus, the non-application of mind by the cognizance taking Magistrate is at once apparent. It is a clear case where without offering any fact and any reason the order of cognizance was made and the order of summoning was passed. Thus, the non-application of mind by the cognizance taking Magistrate is at once apparent. Such action on part of the Court falls foul of the law laid down in the rulings cited above. It is one reason for which this case can be quashed. 10. In the context of cases concerning matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment and exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the Courts, the law has been that there shall be specific and distinct allegations as against each accused about the role played by them with reference to each of the offences alleged against them. Courts are to be guarded and careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry harassment cases and the Courts have to keep in mind that of late such criminal prosecutions are initiated as against all the family members and distant relatives by making omnibus allegations. Cases with omnibus allegations are deserved to be quashed vide Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar : (2022) 6 SCC 599 . Insufficient material allegations that are improbable to happen and abnormal delay between the matrimonial discord and initiation of criminal proceedings are all appropriate legal incidents for consideration while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vide Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2023 LawSuit (SC) 863. Genuine cases of dowry harassment require serious consideration. However, exaggerated version of small incidents cannot fall within the ambit of Section 498-A I.P.C. vide Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand : (2010) 7 SCC 667 . 11. In the backdrop of such legal principles, the facts at hand deserve a look. Sri N.Naga Raju/A.1 and Smt. N.Rani/LW.1 got married on 14.09.2017. Two months thereafter the marriage seems to have run into rough weather. The husband/A.1 finding that the marital life cannot be sustained and his wife has not been coming up for reunion he filed O.P.No.6 of 2019 before learned Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam seeking divorce. He filed that petition on 10.12.2018. That is the first visible document between parties. The husband/A.1 finding that the marital life cannot be sustained and his wife has not been coming up for reunion he filed O.P.No.6 of 2019 before learned Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam seeking divorce. He filed that petition on 10.12.2018. That is the first visible document between parties. Thereafter on 28.03.2019 the victim woman lodged written information and that became F.I.R. Thereafter the victim woman filed M.C.No.14 of 2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru against her husband and sought maintenance. That petition was filed on 18.04.2019. Thereafter the Sub-Inspector of Police laid charge sheet on 01.05.2019. The first information report alleges that all the accused have been demanding additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and for not bringing it they were abusing and beating her. Thus, the allegations indicate physical abuse of victim woman on more than one occasion. Charge sheet as well as F.I.R. are silent as to the woman receiving any specific physical injuries. The charge sheet is absolutely silent as to whether the investigating officer tried to find out what injuries were sustained and whether the victim woman took any medical treatment etc., facts. Such material is necessary because the cruelty contemplated under Section 498-A I.P.C. is of such nature and the acts attributed must either drive the woman to commit suicide or must be such that living with the family would cause grave danger to life or limb. A mere allegation that husband and others beat the woman by itself does not satisfy the essential ingredients of cruelty mandated under Section 498-A I.P.C. by the legislature. All those aspects are absolutely silent in the charge sheet. A reading of the first information report as well as charge sheet would show that on three occasions either before the elders or before the police the matter was settled between the husband and his family members on one side and the victim and her family members on the other side. When once the matters were so settled, they could not once again become facts for taking cognizance. When once the matters were so settled, they could not once again become facts for taking cognizance. Viewed from that angle the latest of the allegations only show that it was from November, 2018 the accused beat the victim woman and her husband attempted to squeeze her neck and she cried and others came and rescued her and she left her matrimonial home and she was there with her parents and on receiving notices in divorce case filed by her husband she conferred with her family members and others and finally lodged the first information. Thus, there is only one omnibus allegation on some unspecified date in November, 2018 that forms part of the record as a ground for taking cognizance. No specific details are there. Nothing perceptible is seen. Further, initiation of criminal case did not take place soon after the alleged incidents and it started long after receipt of divorce notices from the husband. Looking at the facts through the prism of ratios referred earlier, this Court finds that initiation and continuation of C.C.No.786 of 2019 is against the principles laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure and is abuse of process of Court. Point is answered in favour of the petitioners. 12. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed. Proceedings as against the petitioners/A.1 to A.9 in C.C.No.786 of 2019 on the file of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tiruvuru, Krishna District registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act stand quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.