ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.218 of 2020 on the file of the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 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’]. 2. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein are the husband, mother-in-law and father-inlaw respectively of Respondent No.2/de facto complainant. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: a. Marriage of Respondent No.2 was performed with Petitioner No.1/ Accused No.1 on 29.08.2018 at Chand Kalyana Mandapam, Vijayawada, as per Hindu rites and customs. b. At the time of marriage, parents of Respondent No.1 gave dowry of Rs.15 lakhs, 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the accused. c. After joining the conjugal life, complainant realized that Accused No.1 is impotent. All the accused by concealing the impotency of Accused No.1, performed the marriage. d. With a view of wrap the inefficiency of Accused No.1, all the accused started harassing the complainant by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and warned her that they would perform another marriage to Accused No.1 and they drove the complainant out of the matrimonial house. e. As such, the complainant lodged a complaint against all the accused, based on which a case in Crime No.460 of 2019 of Ongole Taluka Police Station, Prakasam District was registered and after investigation, Police filed charge sheet for the alleged offences which is numbered as C.C.No.218 of 2020 on the file of the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. 4. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioner Nos.,1 to 3/Accused Nos.1 to 3 filed the present petition on the following grounds; a. Registration of the crime itself is illegal as either in the FIR or in the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted. b. Respondent No.2 lived with the family of the Petitioners only for six days and thereafter she left the matrimonial home. The present complaint was filed only to force Accused No.1 and his family to meet her unlawful demand which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. b. Respondent No.2 lived with the family of the Petitioners only for six days and thereafter she left the matrimonial home. The present complaint was filed only to force Accused No.1 and his family to meet her unlawful demand which is nothing but an abuse of process of law. c. Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint after one year 15 days of the marriage, so in present case, Section 3 of D.P. Act is not maintainable and the delay was not explained. d. The allegations against the Petitioners are vague and there are no specific allegations to constitute the offences as alleged. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 5. Heard Ms. B. Tapaswi, learned counsel representing Sri K. Abhiram, learned counsel for Petitioners and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Though notice was sent to Respondent No.2, same was returned with an endorsement “unclaimed”. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the Complainant lived with the petitioners only for a period of six days and thereafter she did not return to the matrimonial home. In the complaint and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant, she stated that her parents gave Rs.15 lakhs dowry and 20 sovereigns of gold, whereas in the reply notice dated 22.04.2019 got issued on her behalf, she stated that for the marriage alliance Rs.4 lakhs was paid and there was no mention of 20 sovereigns of gold. He would further submit that the present complaint was filed belatedly after 1 year 15 days of the commencement of the marriage, which is not maintainable. It is also stated that all the allegations leveled against the Petitioners are vague and baseless. Further, the case against Accused Nos.4 to 12 was quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Crl.P.No.2861 of 2020 dated 23.01.2023, as such, the proceedings against the Petitioners shall also be quashed. 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, she prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 8. 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, she prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.218 of 2020 on the file of the Court of III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 420 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act? Determination by the Court 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. To cite a few, State of Haryana & others v. Bhajanlal & others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC at paras 102 and 103, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & others, (2020) 10 SCC 180 at para 57. 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. 12. A perusal of the complaint as well as the statements of the witnesses would go to show that there Petitioners herein along with the other accused, by concealing the impotency of Accused No.1. 12. A perusal of the complaint as well as the statements of the witnesses would go to show that there Petitioners herein along with the other accused, by concealing the impotency of Accused No.1. Further in the reply notice dated 22.04.2019 got issued by Respondent No.2, it was alleged that Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 used to harass her to sell away 17 gadies of house site given by her parents towards Pasupu Kumkuma and that they used to threaten the Complainant to do as she likes and they would manage the Police. There are specific allegations against the Petitioners with regard to the commission of alleged offences. Furthermore, the complainant also filed D.V.C.No.2 of 2021 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole against all the accused. 13. The charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. was alleged in the complaint on the ground that the husband-A-1 was impotent and this fact was concealed by him and his parents, before the marriage. To succeed in establishing the offence under Section 420, it is essential to show that the Accused were having sufficient knowledge that Accused No.1 was impotent before contracting the marriage with the de facto complainant and the same was suppressed by the Accused. The answer to this question would come out only in the full length of trial. 14. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that a crime under Section 3 of D.P. Act would not be maintainable after marriage has no legs to stand, in view of the definition provided in Section 2 of the D.P. Act, which includes dowry that is “at”, “before”, and “any time after the marriage”. 15. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the case against Accused Nos.,4 to 12 was quashed by this Court vide its Order dated 23.01.2023 in Crl.P.No.2861 of 2020, it cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners herein. The basis for quashing the crime as against Accused Nos.4 to 12 was because there were no specific overt acts attributed against them. That is not the case in the instant matter with the Petitioners. There are specific allegations levelled. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be proved during the course of trial before the trial Court. The basis for quashing the crime as against Accused Nos.4 to 12 was because there were no specific overt acts attributed against them. That is not the case in the instant matter with the Petitioners. There are specific allegations levelled. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be proved during the course of trial before the trial Court. It is not open to the Court to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the Petitioners and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage, since the ingredients of the offences alleged against the Petitioners are prima facie made out. 16. Moreover, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are all the matters relating to appreciation of evidence and it is the task of the trial Court to appreciate the evidence that may be adduced by the prosecution during the course of trial. At this stage, there are absolutely no valid legal grounds emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the charge sheet. Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacks merit. 17. Without prejudice to the available defence in future, the quash petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.