ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) by the petitioner/Accused No.4 to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.463 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The allegations mentioned in the complaint, are as follows: (i) On 15.04.2012 the marriage of the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) with Accused No.1 was solemnized in Sri Venkateswara Swamy vari Devasthanam Kalyana Mandapam, Godugupeta, Machilipatnam. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) presented cash of Rs.5,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and 4 sovereigns of gold to Accused No.1. After the marriage, the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) came to her matrimonial home at Vijayawada. But, her happiness did not exist longer as her husband (A.1) who was in the habit of consuming alcohol subjected her to cruelty during night hours, used to abuse her in filthy language, and used to demand additional dowry. He also showed another girl’s photo in the cell phone and used to state that he would kill the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) and marry the girl who was shown in the cell phone. It is further alleged that the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the 2nd respondent came to the support of Accused No.1. The 2nd respondent was unable to stay in her matrimonial home. They used to demand additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and used to harass the 2nd respondent both physically and mentally to abort her pregnancy. She returned to her parental home and presented a report to the Police and the same was registered as F.I.R in Crime No.1 of 2013 of Mahila Police Station, Machilipatnam for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There was marital discard between the 2nd respondent and her husband (A.1). Petitioner/Accused No.4 supported Accused No.1, in torturing the 2nd respondent both physically and mentally. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. There was marital discard between the 2nd respondent and her husband (A.1). Petitioner/Accused No.4 supported Accused No.1, in torturing the 2nd respondent both physically and mentally. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.4 would submit that the Police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2013 against the husband of the 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) and five others and during the course of investigation, the Police found that there was no evidence to prove the participation of Accused Nos.5 and 6, who are brothers-in-law of A.1, and their names were deleted. It is further submitted that the charge sheet was filed against Accused Nos.1 to 4 (the husband, mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of the 2nd respondent) and numbered as C.C.No.463 of 2014 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate for First Class, Machilipatnam. During pendency of the said case, the defacto complainant (2nd respondent) and Accused Nos.1 to 3 were compromised and Criminal Petition M.Ps were filed under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C to record the compromise and under Section 482 Cr.P.C to permit her to withdraw the non-compoundable offence and to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.463 of 2014 against Accused Nos.1 to 3, in Criminal Petition 14749 of 2016. Those criminal M.Ps were allowed and this Court quashed the proceedings against Accused Nos.1 to 3, dt.26.04.2017. It is further submitted that there was no allegation against the petitioner/Accused No.4 either in the FIR or charge sheet, except the pleading that the petitioner/Accused No.4 supported Accused No.1 and participated in harassing the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is making efforts to involve other relations to take vengeance against them. Therefore the proceedings against petitioner/Accused No.4 are liable to be quashed. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that mere compromising between the defacto complainant and A.1 to A.3, the proceedings cannot be quashed against the petitioner/Accused No.4, since her participation in harassing the defacto complainant is proved through the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the proceedings against petitioner/Accused No.4 cannot be quashed. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and also this Court time and again held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised very sparingly in rarest of the rare cases under extraordinary circumstances. It was further held that this Court has to examine case to case basis. Therefore, the proceedings against petitioner/Accused No.4 cannot be quashed. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and also this Court time and again held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be exercised very sparingly in rarest of the rare cases under extraordinary circumstances. It was further held that this Court has to examine case to case basis. In the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C only prima facie case has to be seen in the light of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 868. 6. The undisputed facts are that, the defacto complainant and A.1 to A.3 were compromised, pending proceedings in C.C.No.463 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam and Criminal Petition M.Ps were filed under Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C to record the compromise and under Section 482 Cr.P.C to permit her to withdraw the non-compoundable offence and to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.463 of 2014 against Accused Nos.1 to 3, in Criminal Petition 14749 of 2016. Those criminal petition M.Ps were allowed and this Court quashed the proceedings against A.1 to A.3, dated 26.04.2017, which is extracted hereunder. CRIMINAL PETITION M.P.NOs.3083 & 3084 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.14749 OF 2016 COMMON ORDER: Dt.26.04.2017 Criminal Petition No.14749 of 2016 is filed by the petitioners – Accused Nos.1 to 3, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.463 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2. Criminal petition M.P.No.3084 of 2017 is filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, Smt.Andaluri Kalyani, requesting to permit her to withdraw the non-compoundable offences i.e., Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleged against the petitioners. 3. Criminal petition M.P.No.3083 of 2017 is also filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, Smt.Andaluri Kalyani, stating that with the intervention of the elders and well-wishers, the matter has been compromised and, as such, requested to record compromise and consequently to quash the proceedings against the accused. The terms of compromise have been stated in the compromise petition and the Joint Memo, dated 12.04.2017, signed and affirmed by both the parties and their respective counsel, is also filed. 4. The terms of compromise have been stated in the compromise petition and the Joint Memo, dated 12.04.2017, signed and affirmed by both the parties and their respective counsel, is also filed. 4. The de facto complainant, petitioner No.1- accused No.1, who is the husband of the defacto complainant, and petitioner No.2-accused No.2, who is the mother of accused No.1, are present. Petitioner No.3-accused No.3 is not present. The parties are identified by their respective counsel, Sri K.Sai Mohan rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S.Balamohan, learned counsel for the de facto complainant, and they have produced Photostat copies of their respective “Aadhaar Cards” in proof of their identity and also attested on the case bundle. 5. Sri K.Sai Mohan rao, learned counsel for the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 3, would represent that petitioner No.3 is a married lady and she could not come from Vijayawada today, though, she has signed in the compromise petition. Be that as it may, the de facto complainant has come forward to record the compromise. In fact, in paragraph 4 of the compromise petition, it is mentioned that the amount was already settled towards permanent alimony by the Lok Adalath in Case No.178 of 2016 and the de facto complainant had already received the said amount towards full and final settlement. 6. On being asked, the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and the petitioners report that with the intervention of the elders and well-wishers, they have compromised the matter and the terms of compromise are stated in the compromise petition, which is signed by both parties and their counsel. The parties also filed the Joint Memo, dated 12.04.2017, signed by them and their counsel. 7. Since both the parties have affirmed the terms of the compromise and request to record the compromise and to quash the proceedings, in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303 , Criminal petition M.P.Nos.3083 & 3084 of 2017 are allowed permitting the de facto complainant to withdraw the non-compoundable offences referred to above and recording the compromise between the parties in terms of the compromise entered into by them. 8. State of Punjab, 2012 (10) SCC 303 , Criminal petition M.P.Nos.3083 & 3084 of 2017 are allowed permitting the de facto complainant to withdraw the non-compoundable offences referred to above and recording the compromise between the parties in terms of the compromise entered into by them. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, at the admission stage itself, quashing the proceedings against the accused in C.C.No.463 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. The terms of compromise entered into by the parties, shall form part of the record. 7. In the present case, the proceedings is pending against the petitioner/Accused No.4, who is none other than the sister-inlaw of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent. For the reasons best known to her, she was not compromised with Accused No.4 when the proceedings against Accused Nos.1 to 3 are quashed. It shows the attitude of the defacto complainant to take vengeance against Accused No.4. Except bald statement that Accused No.4 has supported Accused No.1, who was harassing for dowry, nothing else indicated her involvement in crime, who is staying in Visakhapatnam and except omnibus allegations, she has been named without attributing any specific role to participate in the crime. 8. In a decision reported in K.Subba Rao and others Vs. State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home and others, (2018) 14 SCC 452 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at Para No.6, observed as follows: “Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a Court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 9. See State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.” 9. At the beginning, the defacto complainant named six persons in the FIR saying that they are all caused harassment physically and mentally and responsible for the marital discard between the 2nd respondent and her husband and the matter was investigated by the Police and the names of husbands of Accused Nos.3 and 4, who were shown as Accused Nos.5 and 6, were deleted on the ground that there was no evidence to prove their participation, and filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 4. 10. During pendency of C.C.No.463 of 2014, the defacto complainant and Accused Nos.1 to 3 were compromised and the proceedings against Accused Nos.1 to 3 were quashed as stated supra. It shows that the defacto complainant has been found to be making efforts at the beginning for involving other relations i.e., Accused Nos.2 to 4, having compromised with Accused Nos.1 to 3 clearly shows that their implication was thus, is clear abuse of the process of the Court. Though the petitioner was also named as Accused No.4 in the FIR, without any specific allegations against her thus, requiring the petitioner to face criminal proceedings, is nothing but abuse of the Court’s process. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that, general allegations are levelled against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent (defacto complainant) alleged that all the accused harassed her mentally. But, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the petitioner herein or A.1 to A.3. The allegations made against the petitioner, are therefore, general and omnibus and cannot be taken into consideration. Allowing the prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the petitioner, would simply result in an abuse of process of law. 11. By virtue of the Order dated 26.04.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition M.P.Nos.3083 and 3084 of 2017 in Criminal Petition No.14749 of 2016, the proceedings in the aforesaid Calendar Case against Accused Nos.1 to 3 were quashed, based on the compromise entered between the parties. 11. By virtue of the Order dated 26.04.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Petition M.P.Nos.3083 and 3084 of 2017 in Criminal Petition No.14749 of 2016, the proceedings in the aforesaid Calendar Case against Accused Nos.1 to 3 were quashed, based on the compromise entered between the parties. The petitioner herein is the sisterin- law of the 2nd respondent and sister of the husband of the 2nd respondent. Hence, when the matter was compromised between the prime accused and the 2nd respondent, it would be just to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that it is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.463 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.463 of 2014 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Machilipatnam, Krishna District for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.