ORDER : 1. The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[in short “Cr.P.C.”] has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C. No.1794 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[in short “Cr.P.C.”]. 2. The factual background leading to the filing of the Petition: a. As per the averments made in the chargesheet, the marriage of the de facto complainant and the Accused No.1 was performed on 30.11.2018. After their marriage, Accused No.1 did not take the complainant to the marital house to lead conjugal life and made her to stay at her parents’ house. Accused No.1 switched off his cell phone and avoided contact with the complainant b. It is stated further that the de facto complainant made enquiries at the work place of Accused No.1 and learnt that he quit the job. On enquiring her father–in-law, he replied that Accused No.1 left to Delhi for coaching. Later, she came to Ongole i.e., her husband’s place and came to know that they have changed their house to elsewhere. c. It is averred that after coming to know their address, the de facto complainant went to her in-laws and questioned their behaviour, all the accused informed her that they are going to perform another marriage to Accused No.1 and necked her out of the marital house. A scuffle took place, in which, her brother-in-law beat her. d. On 26.12.2018 complainant presented a report in police station. Basing on it, a case was registered which culminated into C.C. No.1794 of 2021. e. Accused No.1 is the husband, whereas Accused Nos., 2 to 4 are parents-in law and brother-in law of the de facto complainant. Seeking quashment of the C.C., the present petition is filed. f. Hence, Crl.P. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. Heard Sri A. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Sai Manoj Reddy, learned counsel representing Indus Law Firm appearing for Respondent No.2. Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/ Respondent No.1 is in attendance. 4. f. Hence, Crl.P. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. Heard Sri A. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Sai Manoj Reddy, learned counsel representing Indus Law Firm appearing for Respondent No.2. Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/ Respondent No.1 is in attendance. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 fairly conceded that there are no ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. against the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who are the parents and brother of the husband/Accused No.1. 5. To this, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that against Accused No.1 also, there are no ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. It is submitted that the entire incident alleged to have happened at Ongole, but the case is transferred to Vijayawada by an endorsement of the Commissioner’s Office. Learned counsel further would submit that learned Magistrate without applying the judicial mind, took cognizance of the offence against Accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and the order of cognizance itself is non est under law. Learned counsel finally submits that no case is made out prima facie against the Petitioner No.1 also i.e., Accused No.1. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that against Accused No.1, there are clear ingredients to attract the offence since as per the contents of the complaint and the material on record, Accused No.1 left the wife immediately after the marriage and made her to go around, which is nothing but subjecting a woman to mental cruelty. It is also submitted that the contentions raised in the present petition are a matter of trial. Ultimately, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the petition of the Accused No.1. Point for Determination 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, point for determination that arises in this case is as follows: Whether the case against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.1794 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, is liable to be quashed by exercising the jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Determination by the Court 8. Determination by the Court 8. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is a well settled principle of law that when a prosecution is sought to be intervened by quashment, the test to be applied is to see whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence alleged or not. 9. To decide further in this matter, it is relevant to extract Section 498-A of I.P.C. Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.] 10. The essential ingredients under section 498A are as follows; • A woman must be married; • Such women must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment and; • Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband or the relative of husband. 11. The essential ingredients under section 498A are as follows; • A woman must be married; • Such women must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment and; • Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband or the relative of husband. 11. For the purpose of constituting an offence under the Section referred Supra, the ingredients thereon must be existing. The Section also defines the meaning of cruelty. Thus, Section 498A is a powerful weapon in the hands of married women against subjection to cruelty and harassment by her husband or his relatives. 12. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings initiated in matrimonial matters, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court delivered numerous decisions. It is relevant to refer to a few, at this juncture. 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 held as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. ******* 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” (emphasis supplied) 14. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” (emphasis supplied) 14. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324 , wherein, it was observed as follows:- “For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusations are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the inlaws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.” (emphasis supplied) 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another, 2024 INSC 369 , highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relevant observations made in the context of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as follows; “25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute.” (emphasis supplied) 16. To summarize the judgments referred supra, it can be clearly stated that in criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial matters, when there is no iota or whisper of allegations present In the contents of the complaint, necessary for the ingredients under the Section, general, vague and omnibus allegations and mere casual reference of names of relatives of the husband cannot be taken into account to sustain the accusations. 17. As has been already discussed, Section 498A is a powerful weapon in the hands of married women. The way in which this weapon is put to use assumes greater significance, especially in the matters pertaining to quashment of cases filed by relatives of the husband. As has been noted by several judgments, the tendency of roping in the relatives of the husband with omnibus and vague allegations is on rise. Therefore, in the absence of meeting the ingredients of the provision of law, permitting the continuance of criminal proceedings against such persons is an abuse of process of court. In the present case, as has been fairly conceded by the Learn Counsel for Respondent No. 2, there are no allegations attributable to Accused No. 2 to 4. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against them is not tenable. 18. So far as accused No.1 is concerned, as rightly put by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2, it is not the proper stage to decide whether the allegations made against the husband amounts to mental cruelty or not, since it is a matter of trial. The order of the Magistrate taking cognizance without reasons can be challenged by way of a revision. Be that as it may, in the light of the material placed on record, when there is a prima facie case to show that the de-facto complainant was subjected to the alleged mental cruelty by the Accused No.1, it is not a fit case for quashment as against him. The power conferred to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized for the purpose of conducting a mini trial. Hence, there are no justifiable grounds to exercise the same. 19. However, it is left open to Accused No.1 to raise his contentions before the trial Court, as the allegations made against the husband require investigation at the full length of trial. 20. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed relating to Petitioner Nos.2 to 4/Accused Nos.2 to 4. 19. However, it is left open to Accused No.1 to raise his contentions before the trial Court, as the allegations made against the husband require investigation at the full length of trial. 20. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed relating to Petitioner Nos.2 to 4/Accused Nos.2 to 4. The pending C.C. as against the Accused Nos., 2 to 4 is hereby quashed. 21. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions, the Criminal Petition is dismissed in so far as Petitioner No.1/Accused No.1 is concerned. The pending C.C. as against the Accused No.1 shall continue. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.