ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the Petitioners/A.2,A.3 and A.4, seeking quashment of Proceedings against them in C.C.No.230 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddypalli, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [for short ‘IPC’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, [for short ‘D.P. Act’]. Brief facts of the case of de facto complainant are : 2. (a) Both parties are inter related. A.2 is the maternal aunt of de facto Complainant.A.1 is the son of A.2 and A.3. A.4 are cousins of A.1. (b) Marriage of de facto Complainant was performed with A.1. On demand of A.1 to A.3, parents of De facto Complainant gave 5 tulas of gold and Rs.4.00 lakhs cash to the accused. Immediately after marriage, A.1 took Complainant to Bangalore along with A.2 and A.3. (c) After ten days of marriage, A.1 to A.3 started harassing the Complainant physically and mentally subjected to cruelty and demanded Rs.2.00 lakhs of cash as additional dowry. Accused beat her and necked her out from the house. Several times, complainant tried to join A.1 to lead marital life, but she is not permitted to step into the house. (d) At last, in the month of November, 2021, A.4 who is the senior material aunt son came to Complainant and stated that if the (L.Ws.2 and 3) parents of Complainant did not pay additional dowry of Rs.2.00 lakhs cash and 5 thulas gold, Complainant would not be permitted to lead conjugal life with A.1 and send marriage will be performed to A.1. (e) Basing on the Complaint of De facto Complainant, a case in Crime No.57 of 2022 of Galiveedu Police Station was registered against A.1 to A.4 for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) read with 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After completion of the investigation, Police filed a charge sheet against A.1 to A.4 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.230 of 2022 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddypalli, for the above-mentioned offences. The present petition is filed to quash the Proceedings in the above C.C against the Petitioners/A.2, A.3 and A.4. After completion of the investigation, Police filed a charge sheet against A.1 to A.4 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.230 of 2022 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Lakkireddypalli, for the above-mentioned offences. The present petition is filed to quash the Proceedings in the above C.C against the Petitioners/A.2, A.3 and A.4. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 3. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the Petitioners/A.2 to A.4, Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri G. Kondala Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2/De complainant. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/A.2 to A.4 would submit that both parties are relatives to each other and that except omnibus allegations, no specific allegations are made out against the Petitioners attracting the offence lodged against them. Learned counsel would submit that the statement of the witnesses before the Police did not prima facie establish any specific incident of harassment against respondent No.2. Learned counsel would submit that Learned Magistrate in a mechanical manner has taken cognizance of offence against Petitioners without applying the judicious mind. Learned counsel submits that without considering the fact that wife and husband are living separately and with a view to harass and to intimidate, Petitioners were falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel prays for quashment of the case against Petitioners, who are mother, father and cousin brothers of A.1. 5. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 in one voice would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against Petitioners. It is submitted that the allegations made against the Petitioners would squarely attract the offence alleged against them and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against them. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/A.2 to A.4 in C.C.No.230 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddypalli, Annamayya District ? Determination by the Court 7. Determination by the Court 7. 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 trial court, 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. 8. In the context of criminal proceedings in matrimonial matters, 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) 9. 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) 9. Coming to the case of petitioner No.3/A.4, who is the cousin brother of A.1, except a casual reference, nothing has been attributed against him. Admittedly, there is no whisper that A.4 resided along with A.1 and de facto Complainant in one roof. Therefore, allegation of harassment made by Petitioner No.3/A.4 against the de facto Complainant is not tenable. Except casual reference in the complaint, nothing has been attributed against him to attract the offences alleged against the accused. The allegations leveled against Petitioner No.3/A.4 are baseless and omnibus and do not disclose the commission of any offence making out a case against him. It is not uncommon to say that the family members of the husband are roped in criminal case to settle their scores. In such circumstances, this Court can exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion and the decisions referred to supra, this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal proceedings against Petitioner/A.4 is undesirable and the same are liable to be quashed. 11. As far as the case of Petitioners 1 and 2/A.2 and A.3 are concerned, they are parents of A.1. Taking into consideration of their age and health condition, this Court deems it fit to dispense with their presence before the Trial Court. 12. In that view, the Proceedings against Petitioner No.3/A.4 in C.C.No.230 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddypalli, Annamayya District, are hereby quashed. So far as Petitioners 1 and 2/A.2 and A.3 are concerned, their presence presence before the Trial Court is dispensed with, except on the specific dates as directed by the trial Court. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.