ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. 1. 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. 1 to 7, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No. 125 of 2021, on the file of Korukonda Police Station, Rajahmundry Urban registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code[for short 'IPC'] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act[for short 'the Act']. 2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition are: a. The marriage of Respondent No. 2 was performed with Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1 on 06.11.2004. At the time of marriage, on demand of the mother-in-law of Respondent No. 2, an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and two sovereigns of gold were given towards dowry. After some period, all the accused started harassing Respondent No. 2 demanding additional dowry. Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1 at the instigation of his sisters i.e., Petitioners 2 to 7/Accused Nos. 2 to 7 used to harass her to bring additional dowry. Unable to bear with their harassment, Respondent No. 2 went to her parental home. Though the matter was placed before elders for compromise, they did not heed to their words. Hence, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint with Korukonda Police which was registered as a case in Crime No. 125 of 2021. b. The present petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the above crime against the petitioners. 3. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. None represented for Respondent No. 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the present complaint was filed with a mala fide intention by suppressing the facts, to harass the petitioners. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 willfully left the matrimonial home and has been living at her parental home. He would also submit that as Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1 refused to join her as illatom son-in-law, the present complaint was filed. It is further submitted that the marriages of Petitioner Nos., 2 to 7 were already performed and they have been living with their families and they never lived along with the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that the marriages of Petitioner Nos., 2 to 7 were already performed and they have been living with their families and they never lived along with the Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. He would finally submit that the allegations in the complaint are vague and do not disclose the alleged offence and hence he prays this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the criminal petition. She would submit that there is no merit in the contention of the Petitioners/Accused Nos.,1 to 7 that there are no allegations against them about the commission of the offence. Therefore, she would pray to dismiss the criminal petition. Point for Determination 6. 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 in Crime No. 125 of 2021 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498- A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act? Determination by the Court 7. Section 482 powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. 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. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. 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) 8. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 INSC 779 in the context of a complaint filed by a wife under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against her husband, his parents, and his brothers, observed as follows; "13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [ (2022) 6 SCC 599 ], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in- laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged. 14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [ (2010) 7 SCC 667 ], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that 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, as allegations of harassment by husband's close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 15. 15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [ (2009) 10 SCC 184 ], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and end all' of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC" (Emphasis supplied) 9. Further, in a decision reported in K. Subbarao & Others v. State of Telangana and others (2018) 14 SCC 452 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows at Para 6: "6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a Court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. (See State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal.) The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out." 10. Admittedly, the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 had taken place on 06.11.2004. Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home and has been staying at her parental home since 25.05.2008. As such, Petitioner No. 1 filed H.M.O.P. No.42 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur for restitution of conjugal rights. Though a decree was granted in the said O.P directing Respondent No. 2 to join with her husband, she did not do so. Thereafter, Petitioner No. 1 filed H.M.O.P. No.55 of 2020 on the file of the same Court seeking divorce on 15.09.2020 and subsequently divorce was granted on 15.03.2023. In the meanwhile, after receiving notice in divorce petition, the present case has been lodged against the petitioners with allegations. 11. The first guideline issued in Bhajanlal (supra) comes into rescue to quash a complaint is when allegations even if true, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. In the meanwhile, after receiving notice in divorce petition, the present case has been lodged against the petitioners with allegations. 11. The first guideline issued in Bhajanlal (supra) comes into rescue to quash a complaint is when allegations even if true, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. In the instant case, when the complaint allegations are perused, it appears that there are no pivotal allegations made against the petitioners/A.1 to A.7. Further, the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence and as such do not make out a case against the petitioners. It appears that the present complaint is filed as a counterblast to the divorce petition filed by Petitioner No. 1/Accused No. 1. In such circumstances, this Court finds it just to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 7 is undesirable and the same are liable to be quashed. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 7 in Crime No. 125 of 2021, on the file of Korukonda Police Station, Rajahmundry Urban registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.