ORDER : This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed on behalf of the petitioners/A-1 to A-5 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.83 of 2022 of Hindupur Police Station, Anantapur District. 2. A case has been registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 409, 506 read with 34 IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant is resident of Ananthapuramu Town and he is a retired Public Servant in Revenue Department. He has two daughters. The elder daughter (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) completed her B. Tech in Karunya Institute of Science & Technology, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu State and thereafter she got selected as Assistant Manager in Indian Overseas Bank. She worked in several places and got promoted as Manager and was working in Hindupur Branch. During her studies, she was in contact with A1 and out of her love and affection, with the consent of complainant, her marriage was solemnized with A-1 on 24.11.2016 in Tirupathi. During that period, the deceased was working as Assistant Manager in Indian Overseas Bank at Dharmavaram. Thereafter, their family got shifted from Dharmavaram to Hindupur and as A1 was working in MANHATTAN Company, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, he used to travel from Hyderabad to Hindupur frequently. During the year 2015, the deceased and the complainant purchased a house bearing No.7/200 in Ananthapuramu Town for a valuable consideration of Rs.66,00,000/-, out of which, complainant invested an amount of Rs.36,00,000/- and a loan of Rs.30,00,000/- was obtained in the name of deceased. During that relevant period, the deceased and A1 led happy marital life. A2 to A4 also resided along with A1 and the deceased. Later, all of them expressed their displeasure as the deceased did not get any amounts towards dowry, and they harassed her stating that their son might have got huge amounts out of dowry. Due to the said marriage, they lost that opportunity and demanded the deceased to get share of the property as there are no male issues to the complainant. Due to the said marriage, they lost that opportunity and demanded the deceased to get share of the property as there are no male issues to the complainant. Since there was no alternative, the de facto complainant accepted the marriage of the deceased with A1 and out of demand made by A1, the complainant purchased Honda City Car bearing No.AP02 CF 0019 worth of Rs.17,00,000/-, for which, the deceased obtained a loan of Rs.9,00,000/- from Indian Overseas Bank and the complainant paid Rs.8,00,000/-. On 04.08.2020, as per the demand of A1 to A4, gold worth 16 tulas was pledged with A-5 and loan of Rs.5,00,000/- was obtained and the same was handed to A-1. Thereafter, the deceased was harassed by A1 to A4 and when the same was informed to the wife of complainant, she consoled her several times and also transferred an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- on 17.12.2020. It is further alleged that the deceased was affected with Covid-19 and during that relevant period, A1 and their family members did not take care of the deceased. The complainant spent huge amounts towards her treatment, and in spite of his best efforts, the deceased lost her breath on 04.03.2021. It is submitted that A1 did not come forward to perform the obsequies and thereafter he was found absconding. The FIR also shows that entire articles were taken away by A1. 4. It is further stated that after demise of the deceased, without consent of the defacto complainant, A-1, in connivance with A-5, got released the entire jewellery and converted the same for his personal use. When the complainant requested A5 for release of gold, he stated that A1 had taken away the jewellery. The complainant made several efforts for return of gold jewellery, for which, A1 to A4 refused to pay any amount and further threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is also alleged that A1 to A4 demanded an additional dowry and harassed the deceased for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. The complainant further alleged that in connivance with A5, A1 to A4 had taken away the gold jewellery and also kept car in their possession. Basing on the said accusation, FIR has been filed at the belated stage. 5. It is also alleged that A1 to A4 demanded an additional dowry and harassed the deceased for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. The complainant further alleged that in connivance with A5, A1 to A4 had taken away the gold jewellery and also kept car in their possession. Basing on the said accusation, FIR has been filed at the belated stage. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a reading of contents of FIR goes to show that only omnibus accusations have been made as against the petitioners herein, and no specific act has been attributed against them. He further stated that the present complaint has been filed by the father of the deceased after lapse of 1 year 14 days, and hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent strenuously contended that the accusations that contained in the FIR are specific in nature. She further contended that there is an accusation to the extent that all the accused together have harassed the deceased, and the accused have taken away the gold ornaments which are pledged with A-5 without informing to the de facto complainant. She further submits that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are disputed questions of fact, and truth or otherwise of the accusations has to be decided during the course of investigation. 7. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of 1st respondent-State too concurred with the submissions made by the learned counsel for 2nd respondent and further stated that insofar as A5 is concerned, prima facie an offence under Section 409 IPC would attract against him. He further contended that all the accused, with a common intention, had taken away the gold ornaments. 8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, wherein it was held thus: “Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon women by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. State of Bihar & Ors, wherein it was held thus: “Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon women by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.” He also relied upon a decision reported in between State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, wherein it was held that; “reference to the word “relative” in Section 498-A IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage.” It is well known rule of construction that when the Legislature uses same words in difference part of the statue, the presumption is that those words have been used in the same sense, unless displaced by the context”. 9. On the other hand, in support of his contention that at the stage of FIR, it is for the investigating agency to conduct investigation when allegations are made in the report, and when the investigation is at nascent stage, truth or otherwise of the said accusation has to be culled out only during the course of investigation, learned counsel for 2nd respondent relied upon a decision reported in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, wherein it was held as under: “The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, whether investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.” She also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and others, (2017) 2 SCC 779 , wherein it was categorically held as under: “At this juncture, we are obliged to refer to the decision in Hema Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. In the said judgment, the Court was dealing with the power of the High Court of Allahabad pertaining to grant of pre-arrest bail in exercise of extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction and it is significant, for in the State of Uttar Pradesh Section 438 CrPC has been deleted by the State Legislature. Be it noted that constitutional validity of the said deletion was challenged before the Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab wherein it has been held that deletion of the application of Section 438 CrPC in the State of Uttar Pradesh is constitutional. The Constitution Bench has ruled held that claim for pre-arrest protection is neither a statutory nor a right guaranteed under Article 14, Article 19 or Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The larger Bench has further observed thus:- “368. (17) Though it cannot be said that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass orders either way, relating to the cases under the 1987 Act, that power should be exercised sparingly, that too only in rare and appropriate cases in extreme circumstances. But the judicial discipline and comity of courts require that the High Courts should refrain from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in such matters.” “We have referred to the authority in Hema Mishra (supra) as that specifically deals with the case that came from the State of Uttar Pradesh where Section 438 CrPC has been deleted. It has concurred with the view expressed in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (supra). It has concurred with the view expressed in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (supra). The said decision, needless to say, has to be read in the context of State of Uttar Pradesh. We do not intend to elaborate the said principle as that is not necessary in this case. What needs to be stated here is that the States where Section 438 CrPC has not been deleted and kept on the statute book, the High Court should be well advised that while entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC, exercise judicial restraint. We may hasten to clarify that the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash the investigation and may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law, but it is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order of the present nature while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation. This kind of order is really inappropriate and unseemly. It has no sanction in law. The Courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay. Relying upon the above decisions, the learned counsel submitted that the petition has to be dismissed since there are specific acts against the petitioners herein. 10. Perused the record. The deceased, who is elder daughter of the informant, was married to A.1 on 24.11.2016 in Tirupathi. During that period, the deceased was working as Assistant Manager in Indian Overseas Bank at Dharmavaram. In the year 2015, the deceased and the informant purchased a house bearing No.7/200 in Ananthapuramu Town at a cost of Rs.66,00,000/-, out of which, the informant invested an amount of Rs.36,00,000/- and a loan of Rs.30,00,000/- was obtained in the name of the deceased. During that relevant period, the deceased and A1 led happy marital life. A2 to A4 also resided along with A1 and the deceased. During that relevant period, the deceased and A1 led happy marital life. A2 to A4 also resided along with A1 and the deceased. It is alleged that all of them expressed their displeasure as the deceased did not get any amounts towards dowry, and they harassed her stating that their son might have got huge amounts out of dowry, and they demanded the deceased to get share of the property as there are no male issues to the informant. Since there was no alternative, the informant purchased Honda City Car bearing No.AP02 CF 0019 worth of Rs.17,00,000/-, for which, the deceased obtained a loan of Rs.9,00,000/- from Indian Overseas Bank and the informant paid Rs.8,00,000/-. On 04.08.2020, as per the demand of A1 to A4, gold worth 16 tulas was pledged with A-5 and loan of Rs.5,00,000/- was obtained and the same was handed over to A-1. Thereafter, the deceased was harassed by A1 to A4 and when the same was informed to the wife of informant, she consoled her several times and also transferred an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- on 17.12.2020. It is further alleged that when the deceased was affected with Covid-19, A1 and their family members did not take care of her. The informant spent huge amounts towards her treatment, and in spite of his best efforts, the deceased lost her breath on 04.03.2021. It is alleged that A1 did not perform obsequies of the deceased and thereafter he was found absconding. The entire articles taken away by A1 are mentioned in the police report. It is further alleged that after demise of the deceased, without consent of the informant, A-1, in connivance with A-5, got released the entire jewellery without informing the informant and converted the same for his personal use. When the complainant requested A5 for release of the gold, he stated that A1 had taken away the jewellery. The complainant made several efforts for return of gold jewellery, for which, A1 to A4 refused to pay any amount and further threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is also alleged that A1 to A4 demanded an additional dowry and harassed the deceased for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. It is further alleged that in connivance with A5, A1 to A4 had taken away the gold jewellery and also kept car in their possession. 11. It is also alleged that A1 to A4 demanded an additional dowry and harassed the deceased for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-. It is further alleged that in connivance with A5, A1 to A4 had taken away the gold jewellery and also kept car in their possession. 11. Though the police report was given at a belated stage, the said aspect has to be investigated by the police. Delay in lodging the report, by itself, is not a ground to quash the proceedings. Specific accusations have been made in the FIR attracting the offences alleged as against A.1 to A.4. It is stated by the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor that investigation is at nascent stage. Truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be investigated into, by the investigating agency. This Court, in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., would not be in a position to conduct a roving enquiry in respect of those aspects. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings against the A1 to A4 at this stage. 12. In so far as A5 is concerned, the accusation made as against A5 is that without consent or knowledge of the informant, A.1, with the connivance of A.5, got released entire gold jewellery and converted the same for his own use and misappropriated the same, and when the informant requested A.5 for released of said gold, he stated that as per the demand made by A.1, he got released the said gold jewellery and handed over to A.1. It is not disputed that A5 is not the relative of A1, which is an admitted fact. After demise of the deceased, it is A1 who had gone and taken away the gold articles which have been pledged with A5. Since A1 is the husband of the deceased, A5 acted in accordance with law in releasing the gold articles in favour of A1. So, in view of the fact that A5 is not the relative of the husband, continuation of the proceedings as against him is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Viewed from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that even accepting the entire accusation that has been made against A5 as true, no prima facie case for the offences alleged would attract as against him. 13. Viewed from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that even accepting the entire accusation that has been made against A5 as true, no prima facie case for the offences alleged would attract as against him. 13. Accordingly, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings against A5 in Crime No.83 of 2022 of Hindupur I Town Police Station, Anantapur District. In respect of A.1 to A.4, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 14. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for petitioners, police are directed to conduct investigation without taking any coercive steps as against the petitioners 1 to 4 herein and to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.