ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6, seeking quashment of the order of cognizance dated 21.01.2020 against them in Crl.M.P.No.1701 of 2019 in C.C.No.292 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, East Godavari District for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code[for short ‘IPC’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act[for short ‘D.P.Act’]. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the Petition are; a. Initially Police filed charge sheet only against Accused No.1, who is the husband of Respondent No.2/Complainant observing as follows: “During course of investigation the material witnesses L.Ws.3 to 6 who are neighbours to the scene of offences at G.Ragampeta Village and Vadlamuru Village and eye witnesses to the occurrence of offence in this case and L.Ws.7 to 10 who are the elders did not state about involvement of alleged accused A.2 to A.7 who are in-laws of L.W.1 in this case.” b. Against the same, Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition to take cognizance against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of Accused No.1 and Accused Nos.4 to 6 are the relatives of Accused Nos.1 to 3. 3. The contents of the protest petition, in brief, are as follows: a. Marriage of the complainant took place with Accused No.1 in 2006. At the time of marriage, her parents gave dowry and observed other formalities as per the as per the demand of Accused No.1 and his family members. b. Parents and other family members of Accused No.1 encouraged him to harass her. Accused No.1 used to beat her with hands and her head to the wall. After reconciliation before the elders, accused looked after the complainant properly for days and later, Accused No.1 beat and necked her out from the house. Other accused encouraged him and used to cause disputes between the wife and husband. c. Complainant gave birth to a female child and then they accelerated the torture. Despite counseling for four times, Accused No.1 did not change his mentality. Accused got Ac.5.00 cents of wet land at Vadlamuru and Govindarajupalem, two houses at Vadlamuru, Ac.0.12 cents of house sites. Other accused encouraged him and used to cause disputes between the wife and husband. c. Complainant gave birth to a female child and then they accelerated the torture. Despite counseling for four times, Accused No.1 did not change his mentality. Accused got Ac.5.00 cents of wet land at Vadlamuru and Govindarajupalem, two houses at Vadlamuru, Ac.0.12 cents of house sites. She requested the Police to direct the accused to give a share in the properties to her daughter and to arrange amount towards maintenance of the child. Police did not take any action, as such, the complaint was filed. d. Accused Nos.2 to 6 are behind back of Accused No.1. Hence, she intends to proceed further against Accused Nos.2 to 6. 4. Learned Magistrate examined the complainant and three others as P.Ws.1 to 4. and passed the following impugned order; “This Petition filed by the complainant under Section 190 (A) Cr.P.C. to proceed against A2 to A6 and punish the accused according to law. Considering the evidence of witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 case is taken on file against Bikkina Dhanaraju, Bikkina Suryakantham, Maddipudi Mangathayaru, Bethina Durga Rani, Bethina Satyanarayana for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act read with 34 IPC, CC 292/2017 and this case clubbed together under Section 210 Cr.P.C.” 5. Aggrieved by the said order taking cognizance, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 filed the present petition on the following grounds: a. Police after investigation and examining the witnesses, deleted the names of the Petitioners herein, as none of the witnesses, stated about the involvement of the Petitioners in the above crime. b. The learned Magistrate erroneously took cognizance against the Petitioners for the alleged offences. The learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason for taking cognizance of the case against the Petitioners. c. A bare reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 does not disclose any ingredients of Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and only omnibus allegations were made against the Petitioners. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 6. Heard Sri T.V. Jaggireddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 7. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 6. Heard Sri T.V. Jaggireddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is without any reasons and that even in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 in the protest petition, no specific allegations were attributed against the Petitioners. It is also urged that except the omnibus allegations, nothing is alleged against the Petitioners. It is also pointed out that as seen from the original complaint, intention of the complainant is to get the property and maintenance from the husband. It is finally submitted that taking cognizance of the alleged offences against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd., and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749 . 8. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in one voice, would submit that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate against the Petitioners, is on correct lines and that there are no grounds to quash the said order. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 9. 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 order of cognizance dated 21.01.2020 against the Petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.1701 of 2019 in C.C.No.292 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram? Determination by the Court 10. 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. 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. 11. In the instant Petition, the order of the Learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence as against the Petitioners is impugned. The word “cognizance” is derived from the Latin word “cognosis”, wherein con means “with” and gnosis means “to know”. Though the term cognizance is not defined anywhere in the Code, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajit Kumar Palit v. State of West Bengal AIR 1963 SC 765 assigned the following meaning to it; “the word “cognizance” has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law or procedure. It merely means- become aware of an when used with reference to a Court of Judge, to take notice of judicially” (emphasis supplied) 12. Further, in criminal law parlance, cognizance means to take notice on a matter presented before it to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings or not. Section 190 of the Code, which empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance. Section 190(1) reads as follows; “Section 190- Cognizance of offences by Magistrates: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence– (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2)……….” 13. When the report of the police states that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate is equipped with three choices i.e., (A) Magistrate may accept the report and drop the proceedings or (B) Magistrate may disagree with the report and take a view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, and as such take cognizance of the offence and issue process or (C) Magistrate may direct further investigation to be made under Section 156 (3). 14. 14. When a Magistrate is of the view as provided in option (B) supra, due consideration must be given to the material emanating from the record. In other words, the Magistrate can independently apply his mind to the materials contained in the police report and thereafter take cognizance, in exercise of powers vested under Section 190 (1) (b). Reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 7 SCC 768 , wherein it was noted as follows; “9. ….The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, if he thinks fit, exercise his powers under Section 190(1)(b) and direct the issue of process to the accused. The Magistrate is not bound in such a situation to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance of a case under Section 190(1)(a) though it is open to him to act under Section 200 or Section 202 also. [See India Carat (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1989) 2 SCC 132 ]” (SCC P. 140, Para 16).” (emphasis supplied) 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttaranchal, (2008) 17 SCC 157 observed the pertinence of application of a mind of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence as; “17. Nevertheless, it is well settled that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence, it is imperative that he must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or in the police report or the information received from a source other than a police report, as the case may be, and the material filed therewith. It needs little emphasis that it is only when the Magistrate applies his mind and is satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence and decides to initiate proceedings against the alleged offender, that it can be positively stated that he has taken cognizance of the offence. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender.” (emphasis supplied) 16. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in Pepsi India, (referred supra), is also essential for the present purposes. Cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender.” (emphasis supplied) 16. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in Pepsi India, (referred supra), is also essential for the present purposes. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. it is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” (emphasis supplied) 17. Taking of a cognizance is thus an important judicial function, which requires application of mind. More so, when a Magistrate intends to differ from the view in the report of the police, it is essential that such Magistrate wears an independent lens to view at the issue with due care and caution based on the facts that are borne out from the record. In the order taking cognizance, a Magistrate should justify such recourse, with at least bare minimum reasons for his/her satisfaction to proceed further from the preliminary stage. This Court in Shaik Khasimsa v. A. Srinivasa Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1551 explained the pertinence of a reasoned order by an authority and outlined the necessity of the same in the following terms; “19. Any order passed without reasons is not sustainable under law. First, recording of reasons is mandated in orders as they serve multiple purposes. This Court in Shaik Khasimsa v. A. Srinivasa Rao, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1551 explained the pertinence of a reasoned order by an authority and outlined the necessity of the same in the following terms; “19. Any order passed without reasons is not sustainable under law. First, recording of reasons is mandated in orders as they serve multiple purposes. Primarily, a reasoned order offers clarity to the stakeholders of justice delivery system, it makes the parties aware of why a certain claim is allowed and why a certain contention is negated. Further, it creates a better opportunity for the courts sitting in appeal/revision to identify the examination adopted in the order. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 summarized the law on recording of reasons observing that it is intended to serve the wider principle of justice, and it also ensures that the discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.” 18. Thus, an order taking cognizance should reflect the application of a judicial mind on the facts involved in each case. Any order of a Magistrate taking cognizance, in a routine, casual, cryptic, and cursory manner would be in transgression of law. In the case on hand, Police after examining the neighboring witnesses and after due investigation, filed charge sheet against Accused No.1, deleting the names of Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6, since nothing has been elicited against them. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate to take cognizance against the Petitioners also for the alleged offences. 19. A bare perusal of the complaint as well as the statements of the witnesses would reveal specific overt acts against Accused No.1 alone, but not against the Petitioners. However, the learned Magistrate had simply taken cognizance of the offences against the Petitioners without any reasoned order by simply stating “considering evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4”. Furthermore, even the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 before the learned Magistrate in the protest petition does not reveal specific allegations against the Petitioners. However, the learned Magistrate had simply taken cognizance of the offences against the Petitioners without any reasoned order by simply stating “considering evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4”. Furthermore, even the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 before the learned Magistrate in the protest petition does not reveal specific allegations against the Petitioners. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the statement of P.W.1, which reads as follows: “My husband used to harass both physically and mentally at the instigation of other family members i.e., my mother-inlaw, sister-in-law and the husband of my sister-in-law, by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from my parents.” 20. A bare perusal of the same would reveal except a general and omnibus allegation, no specific attributions are made as against the Petitioners. In a catena of decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court recently in Kancharla Venkata Ramana v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine AP 379 observed that in criminal matters concerning matrimonial affairs, it is not uncommon to rope in the family of members of the husband on general allegations, without any specific instances of involvement and in such cases, continuation of criminal proceedings on such persons would be unjust and unsustainable. 21. In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position referred to supra¸ when the Order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences against the Petitioners is examined, the contention of Respondent No.2 falls to ground. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that Order of cognizance against the Petitioners is unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. 22. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The order of cognizance dated 21.01.2020 against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 6 in Crl.M.P.No.1701 of 2019 in C.C.No.292 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, East Godavari District for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.