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.1 to 4, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C.No.340 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur 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. The contents of the complaint, in brief, are as follows: a. The marriage of the complainant took place with one B.Hari Kumar on 21.04.2016. At the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry and 10 tula gold. Fifteen days after their marriage, during the absence of her husband, Accused Nos.1 to 4 caused harassment by demanding additional dowry. Accused No.4 used to convey that the husband of the complainant is not good. Accused No.4 manhandled and necked out the complainant from their house. d. Basing on the report given by the complainant, a case was registered by the police. During the course of the investigation, the investigating officer examined and recorded the statements of the complainant and L.Ws.2 & 3. L.Ws.2 and 3 stated that the complainant falsely foisted Accused Nos.2 to 4, even though they never harassed, but with the hope that Accused No.1 might have changed her attitude. The Crime culminated into C.C.No. 340 of 2017, which is sought to be quashed by the Petitioners. 3. The following are the grounds sought for the quashment of the proceedings; a. The allegation that in absence of her husband Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 have harassed Respondent No.2 for additional dowry is created for the purpose of attracting the provisions of law, which amounts to abuse of process of law. b. Investigating Officer has categorically observed that no offence is made out against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 and on the other hand he prays the Court below to punish the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, which clearly establishes that the investigating officer has not properly investigated the case and filed the charge sheet on mere assumptions and presumptions. c. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 never lived together with family of the husband of Respondent No.2. c. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 never lived together with family of the husband of Respondent No.2. d. There is contradictory plea in the charge sheet and the Court below has taken cognizance of the offence mechanically without any proper appreciation of the charge sheet as such the C.C.No.340 of 2017 is liable to be quashed. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent No.1. Despite notice, none appeared for respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners in elaboration to the contents stated in the Petition, would submit that Petitioner No.1 is the mother-inlaw of the complainant/respondent No.2, and she is working as Junior Assistant in Irrigation Department. It is submitted that the Respondent No.2 and her husband Hari Kumar were harassing the Accused No.1 to hand over 50% of her salary for which she refused, she has lodged a complaint in Muchumari Police Station, which is Crime No.73 of 2016 on 11.03.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of the IPC. It is contended that the present complaint has been lodged as a counter blast to the case filed by the Petitioner/Accused No1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner/Accused Nos.,2 and 4 are son and daughter of Accused No1 and the Petitioner/Accused No.3 is the brother of Accused No.1. It is pointed out that the Accused No.2 is living with his family at Kurnool, Accused No.4 is also married and is living with her husband at Kurnool, whereas Accused No.3 is living separately and he has no connection with the family affairs of the de facto complainant and her husband. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the investigating officer has categorically stated that no offence is made out against the Petitioners while filing the charge sheet. It is argued that when there is valid evidence, the Magistrate Court erred in mechanically taking cognizance and issuing summons. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations made against the Petitioners, however in view of the manner in which the order taking cognizance is passed by the Magistrate Court, this Court may pass appropriate orders. Point for Determination 8. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations made against the Petitioners, however in view of the manner in which the order taking cognizance is passed by the Magistrate Court, this Court may pass appropriate orders. 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 the proceedings against the Petitioners in C.C.No.340 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.? 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. 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. 10. As seen from the record, a case has been lodged against Respondent No.2 in Crime No.73 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of the IPC dated 09.01.2017. It is not the grievance of the complainant that her husband harassing and subjected her to cruelty physically and mentally and demanded her to bring additional dowry. The Petitioners herein are the mother-in-law, brother-in- law, sister-in-law and brother of the mother-in-law of the complainant. No specific allegations are made against the Accused Nos.2 to 4 as mentioned in the charge sheet. It is not out of place to mention that the Investigating officer opined that from the statements of L.Ws.2 and 3, no case is made out against Accused Nos.2 to 4. 11. No specific allegations are made against the Accused Nos.2 to 4 as mentioned in the charge sheet. It is not out of place to mention that the Investigating officer opined that from the statements of L.Ws.2 and 3, no case is made out against Accused Nos.2 to 4. 11. As rightly contended, while taking such a stand, it is strange that in conclusion the Investigating officer prayed the Court to punish the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, The fact remains that Accused No.1 has made complaint against respondent No.2 as a counter case, When the complainant along with her husband is staying separate from the Petitioners, the allegation that they have insisted her to bring additional dowry has no legs to stand. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial proceedings, the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in multiple matters have observed that the tendency of roping in the family members of the husband on mere casual and bald references, when they reside separately, should be curtailed. 12. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the Petitioners, learned Magistrate while taking cognizance did not make any reference about the opinion of the Investigating Officer, regarding the case against Accused Nos.2 to 4. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 498-A r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, without even mentioning to whom the Court is issuing summons. This is in glare violation to the legal position on this aspect. For clarity, it is relevant to extract the order of the cognizance herein to identify the manner in which it was taken:- “CALENDAR CASE No.340 of 2017 P.R.C.No…………………………/2011 Taken on file for the offences U/sec.498(A) r/w 34 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act against accused Issue summons to accused. call on 09.12.2017.” 13. For clarity, it is relevant to extract the order of the cognizance herein to identify the manner in which it was taken:- “CALENDAR CASE No.340 of 2017 P.R.C.No…………………………/2011 Taken on file for the offences U/sec.498(A) r/w 34 IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act against accused Issue summons to accused. call on 09.12.2017.” 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). 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). 14. It is also a trite principle in criminal law that summoning of the accused must reflect the application of mind to factual circumstances and applicable law. Taking of a cognizance is 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. 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. 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. Any order of a Magistrate taking cognizance, in a routine, casual, cryptic, and cursory manner would be in serious transgression of law. A mere glance at the impugned order herein would reveal that no such exercise has been undertaken by the learned Magistrate and cognizance of the offences were taken in a pre-typed proforma.. 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. 17. In that view of the matter, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.340 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.