JUDGMENT 1. The instant petition under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short 'Cr.P.C'] has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.363 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur District registered for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[for short 'IPC'] and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961[for short 'D.P.Act']. 2. Petitioners herein are Accused Nos.2 to 4 in the above C.C and they are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law of Respondent No.2/de facto complainant respectively. 3. Brief facts of the case are: a. The marriage of the de facto complainant with Accused No.1 was performed on 21/4/2016 at Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Both of them were previously married and got divorces and this is their second marriage. At the time of marriage, as per the demand of Accused Nos.1 to 3, the parents of the de facto complainant gave Rs.10.00 lakhs towards dowry, and presented 3 sovereigns of gold bracelet and one sovereign of gold ring to the accused. At the time of marriage, the de facto complainant was working at Chennai. b. After the marriage, she joined with Accused No.1 at Bengaluru on 1/8/2016 and also joined in a job. After few days of marital life, Accused No.1 started harassing the de facto complainant both mentally and physically by abusing her in filthy language. Accused No.1 also used to abuse the parents of the de facto complainant as they kept her with them while her father was undergoing treatment for throat cancer. Accused No.1 used to beat the de facto complainant and left her at her parental home by demanding to bring the gold available in her parental home. Further, Accused No.1 used to send money to Accused Nos.2 to 4 and demand the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs from her parents. When the de facto complainant informed about the harassment of Accused No.1 to his parents and sister, instead of admonishing him, they also supported him. c. On 11/1/2019 Accused No.1 dropped the de facto complainant at her parental home. When the de facto complainant informed about the harassment of Accused No.1 to his parents and sister, instead of admonishing him, they also supported him. c. On 11/1/2019 Accused No.1 dropped the de facto complainant at her parental home. On the eve of Sankranthi festival, Accused No.1 came to her parental home on 15/1/2019 and demanded to give additional dowry of Rs.10.00 lakhs to him and Rs.1.00 lakhs to his sister. When the parents of the de facto complainant questioned his acts, Accused No.1 abused them indiscriminately. Having no other go, the de facto complainant lodged a report with Sattenapalli Police Station against Accused Nos.1 to 4 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.8 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A IPC. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet against all the accused for the offences under Sec. 498-A IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. 4. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the present petition is filed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 to quash the proceedings against them in the above C.C on the following grounds: a. Allegations made in the complaint are all false and concocted for the purpose of foisting a false case against the Petitioners, with a view to harass them. b. No allegation is made out against the Petitioners to attract any offence much less the alleged offence. Even as per the allegations, Respondent No.2/de facto complainant never resided with the Petitioners herein. c. Allegations mentioned in the complaint do not attract any offence and continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 5. Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 would submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners and that the Petitioners never resided with the de facto complainant. It is also stated that the allegations made against the Petitioners do not attract the alleged offences and a case was registered based on the vague allegations to implicate the Petitioners in the case. It is also stated that the allegations made against the Petitioners do not attract the alleged offences and a case was registered based on the vague allegations to implicate the Petitioners in the case. Larned counsel would further submit that the allegations made in the FIR as well as the charge sheet do not make out a case against the Petitioners. It is unfair to compel the Petitioners to undergo the rigmarole of a criminal trial in the absence of any offences against them. 7. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against Petitioners. She would submit 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 Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/ Accused Nos. 2 to 4 in C.C.No.363 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur District registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act? Determination by the Court 9. A bare perusal of Sec. 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 Sec. 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. 10. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 . is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Sec. 482. 10. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 . is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Sec. 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec. 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." (emphasis supplied) 11. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings initiated in matrimonial matters, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has delivered numerous decisions. It is relevant to refer to a few, at this juncture. 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 Sec. 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. 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) 12. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 . the Apex Court held as under: 24. A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the legal position. The court came to a definite conclusion and the relevant observations of the court are reproduced in para 24 of the said judgment as under:- "Inherent powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this Sec. itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute. "30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Sec. 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. "30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Sec. 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Sec. 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful." (emphasis supplied) 13. In the case on hand, a perusal of the material on record would go to show that all the accusations are made are against Accused No.1 to the extent that he used to beat and abuse the de facto complainant by demanding additional dowry and subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically. It is further alleged that Accused No.1 also abused the parents of the de facto complainant for keeping her at her parental home when her father was undergoing treatment for throat cancer. All the accusations that have been made, as per the charge sheet, are alleged to have taken place in Bengaluru, where Accused No.1 and the victim were residing and at the parental house of the de facto complainant i.e., at Sattenapalli. 14. In so far as Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, Petitioners 1 and 2/Accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the parents of Accused No.1 were residing at Tenali and Petitioner No.3/Accused No.4 being the married sister of Accused No.1 has been residing with her family at Hyderabad. Except stating that Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 also supported Accused No.1 in demanding additional dowry, there is no specific date or time that has been mentioned in the charge sheet as well as complaint against the Petitioners herein to explain the same. Except omnibus allegations, there is absolutely no specific accusation against the Petitioners. 15. Except stating that Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 also supported Accused No.1 in demanding additional dowry, there is no specific date or time that has been mentioned in the charge sheet as well as complaint against the Petitioners herein to explain the same. Except omnibus allegations, there is absolutely no specific accusation against the Petitioners. 15. Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court categorically held that a tendency has been developed for roping in all the relatives of the husband in dowry harassment made in order to browbeat and pressurize the immediate family of the husband. No specific instances have been mentioned in the charge sheet against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4. All the allegations that were made against them are either vague or general in nature. More so, the allegations in the charge sheet against these Petitioners would not come within the definition of 'cruelty' as defined under Sec. 498-A IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view, that there are justifiable grounds to exercise the inherent powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. 16. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.363 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, Guntur District for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.