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.4 and 5, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.31 of 2019 on the file of Mylavaram Police Station, YSR District, registered for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.,[for short ‘IPC’] 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: a. Respondent No.2/Complainant has been doing cultivation and eking out his livelihood. He kept his 1000 bags of Bengal Gram each of 60 kgs., in Gugudu Kullayi Swami Rural warehouse on 27.02.2018. Subsequently on 13.03.2018 he kept his 1000 bags of Bengal Gram as security deposit and obtained loan of Rs.14,40,000/- from Canara Bank, Proddatur Branch. Before granting the said loan, Accused Nos.6 and 7, who are the Chief Manager and Branch Manager of the Bank respectively, physically verified the stock. b. Thereafter, when Respondent No.2 tried to discharge his loan and get released his stock, Accused Nos.6 and 7 have been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. On enquiry, Respondent No.2 came to know that Accused Nos.6 and 7 in collusion with Accused Nos.1 to 5 deceived Respondent No.2, committed breach of trust, sold away his stock along with the stock of other farmers for illegal gain and thereby cheated them. c. When Respondent No.2 questioned Accused Nos.6 and 7, they threatened him and asked him to do whatever he wants to do. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against all the Accused Nos.1 to 7 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.31 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Grounds for Quashment: 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, Petitioners/ Accused Nos.4 and 5 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them on the following grounds. a. Petitioners are innocent of the offence alleged against them and the Complainant falsely implicated them, since they happened to be the daughter and son-in-law of the sole proprietor of the warehouse. b. Petitioners have nothing to do with the said warehouse and the sole proprietor of the said godown is Accused No.1. c. Petitioners do not have any share or interest in the business as well as the activities of the said godown. b. Petitioners have nothing to do with the said warehouse and the sole proprietor of the said godown is Accused No.1. c. Petitioners do not have any share or interest in the business as well as the activities of the said godown. d. Petitioners are not parties to the loan transaction of the Complainant with Accused Nos.6 and 7 and they do not have any knowledge about the stock kept in the said godown. e. Petitioners never resided either in Jammalamadugu or any place in Kadapa District. f. No prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners. As such, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Ms. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition would submit that Petitioner No.2/Accused No.5 is the son-in-law died and Petitioner No.1/Accused No.4 is the daughter of Accused No.1. The marriage of the Petitioners was performed on 15.02.205 and Petitioner No.2/Accused No.5 was working in Police Department in Kurnool District. Learned counsel would further submit that there are no specific allegations in the complaint against the Petitioners and criminal liability cannot be fastened against the Petitioners, who are not with Accused No.1. Accused No.4 is a married daughter staying with her husband in Kurnool District. Simply because Petitioners are the daughter and son-inlaw of Accused No.1, they cannot be vicariously liable for the alleged act of Accused No.1. Moreover, learned counsel would submit that Petitioner/Accused No.5 died. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna and another v. Peddi Ravindra Babu and another, (2009) 11 SCC 203 . 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that perusal of the complaint would clearly show that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.4. She would submit that truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be revealed during investigation and at this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused No.4 cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for determination 7. She would submit that truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be revealed during investigation and at this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused No.4 cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for determination 7. Now the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 in Crime No.31 of 2019 on the file of Mylavaram Police Station, YSR District? Determination by the Court 8. 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. 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. 9. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. 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 Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “102. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. 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 Section 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 Section 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 Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 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 Section 155(2) of the Code. (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 Section 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. (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) 10. 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.A bare perusal of the complaint would disclose that Respondent No.2/Complainant does cultivation in Bengal Gram and he alleged to have kept his 1000 bags of Bengal Gram with Canara Bank, Proddatur Branch as security deposit and obtained loan of Rs.14,40,000/-. 11. 11. It is further alleged that when Respondent No.2 tried to get his property released by discharging the loan, he was given to understand that Accused Nos.6 and 7 who are the Chief Manager and Branch Manager of the said Bank respectively in collusion with Accused Nos.1 to 5, sold the said stock and thereby all the Accused committed the alleged offences. 12. Admittedly, Gugudu Kullayaswamy Rural Warehouse Godown which is situated in Marnalavaripalli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR District is a Sole Proprietary concern of Accused No.1. Perusal of the complaint clearly discloses that except the bald and omnibus allegation that all the Accused together, with a view to cause wrongful loss to the Complainant and other farmers, has sold the Bengal Gram, no specific allegations were leveled against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5. Further, Accused No.4 being the married daughter of Accused No.1, used to reside with her husband i.e., Accused No.5 at the places where Accused No.5 used to work. 13. Further, leaned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that Accused No.5 died on 15.07.2023 and in proof of the same, the death certificate of Accused No.5 is filed. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.4. There is no concrete and direct allegation against the Petitioner ascribing any definite role of her in the offence alleged. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 do not make out a case against her and as such, the proceedings against her in the present crime are liable to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.4 in Crime No.31 of 2019 on the file of Mylavaram Police Station, YSR District, for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The Crime against Petitioner/Accused No.5 is abated, since he died. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.