ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’] is preferred by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.124 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler 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’]. 2. Factual Background a. Initially Police filed charge sheet only against Accused No.1, who is the husband of Respondent No.2/Complainant observing as follows: “Actually the alleged A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR did not interfere in the family matters of LW.1 and A.1. But the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR are close relatives of A.1 and whenever there is any problem, the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 did not question the accused A.1 and not admonished A.1. So, L.W.1 mentioned the names of the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR in her complaint at the time of preparing the complaint undue influence of her Advocate, but the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR did not harass LW.1 and demanded any additional dowry amount from the parent’s house of L.W.1. But the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR neither harassed L.W.1 nor demanded any additional dowry amount from the parent’s house of L.W.1 and they did not participate in the offence. They are innocents and they are residing separately at the various places. Hence the offences U/s.498-A IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act against the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR did not prove for the given facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore L.W.16 did not charge sheeted against the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR in this case. Due to undue influence of others and in a mood of tension L.W.1 has mentioned the names of the alleged accused A.2 G.Sreeramulu Reddy, A.3 G.Parvathamma, A.4 G.Suneetha, A.5 G.Raja Reddy, A.6 G.Suguna @ Sugunamma, A.7 Ramachandra Reddy Gundluru, A.8 G.Sreevani, A.9 Y.Lakshmi Reddy and A.10 G.Bharathi as per the FIR in her complaint. There is no evidence to prove the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR guilty for the offences.” 3. There is no evidence to prove the alleged accused A.2 to A.10 as per the FIR guilty for the offences.” 3. Being aggrieved by the deletion of the names of Accused Nos.2 to 10, Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition to take cognizance of the alleged offences against Accused Nos.2 to 10. 4. The contents of the protest petition, in brief, are as follows: a. Respondent No.2/Complainant is a M.Tech., Post Graduate and they are the residents of Piler. Whereas, accused are natives of Boyapalle. Marriage of the complainant with Accused No.1 took place on 12.06.2014 at Rayachoti. At the time of marriage, parents of the complainant gave dowry and observed other formalities as per the demands made by Accused No.1 and his family members. b. Accused No.1 has been working as an Executive Engineer, Irrigation and CAD Department at Tirupati. Soon after the marriage, Accused No.1 had set up his family at Tirupati. Accused No.1 purchased household articles, furniture, which was funded by the father of the Complainant. c. Accused No.1 at the instance of Accused No.5, started harassing the Complainant to get additional amounts from her father, to invest the same in the real estate business. Complainant became pregnant in November, 2014. During 9th month of her pregnancy, she was taken to her parents’ house for delivery. Accused Nos.,1 to 10 attended Seemantham function, which was arranged by the parents of the Complainant, wherein, they picked up quarrels and insulted the Complainant and her family members. After the function, they left by demanding additional dowry. Accused No.3 started canvassing that the Complainant is not a suitable match for her son. The couple was blessed with a daughter on 30.05.2015 at Tirupati. Accused Nos.1 to 3 expressed their unhappiness since a female child was born. d. Accused No.1 abused the Complainant and her parents, left their house and never came to see her. He did not even answer her phone calls. Father and other family members of the Complainant made efforts for settlement of the issues, but Accused Nos.1 to 10 adamantly demanded Rs.50 lakhs and to execute a registered gift deed in respect of the residential house situated at Piler, in the name of Accused No.1 as a condition to allow the Complainant to the matrimonial house and they have insisted to comply with the demand immediately. e. Accused Nos.1 to 10 clearly informed that, without complying the demand, if the Complainant wants to join Accused No.1, she will be killed. Complainant suffered physical and mental cruelty in the hands of the accused. Accused No.1 used to come to the house at about 11.00 pm in drunken state and abuse the Complainant. He went to the extent of stating that he was determined to kill the Complainant and the daughter. He caught hold the throat of the complainant and tried to squeeze with his hands. f. Complainant immediately ran outside the house, bolted the door and made a call to her friend informing about the attempt made by Accused No.1 to murder her. In the early hours, her parents came to Tirupati and took her to Piler, since there was no security to her life in the hands of Accused No.1. At the active institution of Accused Nos.,2 to 10 in all aspects, Accused No.1 harassed the Complainant both physically and mentally. g. Though the Complainant lodged a complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 10, the names of Accused Nos.2 to 10 were deleted and charge sheet was filed against Accused No.1 only. Aggrieved by the same, Complainant filed a Protest Petition on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler to take cognizance of the alleged offences against Accused Nos.2 to 10. 5. The learned Magistrate, vide its order dated 03.05.2019 in Crl. M.P.No.2434 of 2019 had taken cognizance of the offences against Accused Nos.2 to 10. The order of the learned Magistrate is extracted hereunder: “This is an order arising out of the petition filed U/Sec.200 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/complainant has filed this complaint against accused Nos.1 to 10 before this Court U/Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act stating that the accused A.1 to 10 had subjected the complainant No.1 to cruelty and demanded additional dowry apart from taken dowry at the time of marriage. Complainant and 8 other witnesses have given their sworn statements and heard counsel for complainant. After perusing material available on record i.e., the complaint, 161 statement of complainant No.1 before police etc., this Court prima-facie found offences U/Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act against A.1 to 10. As A.1 was already shown as accused in charge sheet, the case is taken only against A.2 to A.10. After perusing material available on record i.e., the complaint, 161 statement of complainant No.1 before police etc., this Court prima-facie found offences U/Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act against A.1 to 10. As A.1 was already shown as accused in charge sheet, the case is taken only against A.2 to A.10. The office is directed to register the complaint as C.C.No. /2019 along with A.1. Issue summons to accused Nos.2 to A10 on payment of process.” 6. Being aggrieved by the order of cognizance, Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10 filed the present on the following grounds: a. Police, after investigation, have come to a conclusion that the allegations were directed against Accused No.1 only and there were absolutely no averments with regard to commission of offence by the Petitioners, and hence, deleted the names of the Petitioners from the charge sheet. b. The charge sheet had been filed on 21.05.2018, the Complainant filed a protest petition against the Petitioners on 19.09.2018 with much delay and there is no explanation for the delay caused. c. Allegations are directed against Accused No.1 and omnibus accusations have been made against the Petitioners. d. Petitioners have been residing at different places, as such, the question of Petitioners involving in the day-to-day affairs of the family of Accused No.1 does not arise. e. There is absolutely no material to connect the Petitioners with the present crime. Number of improvements have been made in the protest petition and much credence cannot be given to those improvements. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 7. Heard Ms.V.Santhi Sri, learned counsel representing Ms.P.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in elaboration to what was stated in the petition would submit that though the investigation does not reveal any incriminating material against the Petitioners, on the protest petition filed by the Complainant, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the Petitioners. It is also contended that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel further submits that all the allegations are directed against Accused No.1 only and the allegations against the remaining accused are omnibus and vague. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel further submits that all the allegations are directed against Accused No.1 only and the allegations against the remaining accused are omnibus and vague. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. 9. 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. There are specific allegations made against the Petitioners. It is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 10. 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/ Accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10 in C.C.No.124 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act? Determination by the Court 11. 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, 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. 12. In the case on hand, perusal of the charge sheet depicts that, Police after due investigation, filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 only by deleting the names of Accused Nos.2 to 10, on the ground that there was no involvement on their part in commission of the alleged offences as they were living separately with the family of Accused No.1. In the case on hand, perusal of the charge sheet depicts that, Police after due investigation, filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 only by deleting the names of Accused Nos.2 to 10, on the ground that there was no involvement on their part in commission of the alleged offences as they were living separately with the family of Accused No.1. 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. 13. A bare perusal of the charge sheet would reveal specific overt acts against Accused No.1 only but not against the Petitioners. The accusations leveled against the Petitioners are omnibus. However, the learned Magistrate had simply taken cognizance of the offences against the Petitioners without any reasoned order. The learned Magistrate has to give reasons as to why he was differing with the findings of the investigating, which was done by the Police and he has to mention the reasons for taking cognizance for the alleged offences against the deleted accused also. The Order passed by the learned Magistrate is bereft of any such reasons. This Court in order dated 27.02.2024 in Crl.P.No.4612 of 2020, emphasized on the importance of application of mind for a Magistrate taking cognizance as follows; “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…..” 14. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd., and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749 , wherein, it was 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. 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) 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position referred to supra¸ when the Order passed by the learned Magistrate by taking cognizance of the offences against the Petitioners is examined, it does not indicate any reason for taking cognizance against the Petitioners. There are specific allegations against Accused No.1 only, but not against the Petitioners with regard to the commission of the alleged offences. 16. Even otherwise, when the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet protest petition are perused, there are no pivotal allegations made against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10. Even on the face of it, no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners to proceed further in this matter. 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. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that Order of cognizance against the Petitioners is unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that Order of cognizance against the Petitioners is unsustainable and the same is liable to be quashed. 17. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10 in C.C.No.124 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.