JUDGMENT 1. The instant petition under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short Cr.P.C"] has been filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.578 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 464, 468 and 472 read with 34of the Indian Penal Code[for short I.P.C."]. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the de-facto complainant; a. Accused No.1 is the mother-in-law and Accused No.2 is the wife of de facto complainant/husband. A.3 is the daughter of A.1. A.4 is the brother of A.1. A.5 is the sister-in-law of A.1. A.6 to A.8 are the relatives of A.1. Marriage of the de facto complainant with A.2 was performed on 13/12/2014 at Annavaram, as per Hindu rites and customs. The couple was blessed with a male child. b. It is averred that A.2 gave de facto complainant, the first shock in their matrimonial life, by revealing that she was in relationship with a person while she was staying at Visakhapatnam, prior to the marriage. Without giving much weight to the same, the de-facto complainant continued the matrimonial life. c. It is further stated that the de facto complainant got second shock when he came to know from the reliable sources and also from the death certificate of A.2"s father that their surname is Seeram" instead of Srirambhotla". His marriage with A.2 was performed with false surname as Srirambhotla", along with false caste name. It is his case that the Accused suppressed about their caste before the marriage and intentionally and deliberately cheated the de facto complainant. d. It is further stated that, when confronted, A.2 abused him in filthy language and left the matrimonial home on 10/5/2018 threatening that she would make the complainant"s life drastic. It is stated that thereafter she lodged a false complaint against the de facto complainant for offence under Sec. 498-A r/w 34 I.P.C. and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by dragging his parents, brother and tried her level best to torture the family of the de facto complainant. e. Complainant approached Amalapuram Town Police on 6/7/2018 to give compliant. Father of A.2 was a government employee, who died while in service. His death certificate was registered on 23/10/1998. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by dragging his parents, brother and tried her level best to torture the family of the de facto complainant. e. Complainant approached Amalapuram Town Police on 6/7/2018 to give compliant. Father of A.2 was a government employee, who died while in service. His death certificate was registered on 23/10/1998. The Inspector of Police called A.1 and A.2 to the Police Station to enquire about the same. It is further stated that on 26/7/2018, A.1 and A.2 approached the Amalapuram Police Station and showed death certificate showing the name as "Srirambhotla Apparao" instead of "Seeram Apparao". The earlier death certificate obtained from Mee Seva showed the name as "SeeramApparao". The de facto complainant has obtained the acknowledgment of his complaint with receipt No.627/18. f. It is further stated that the de facto complainant approached the District Collector, East Godavari and filed a complaint regarding the change of death certificate of his father-in-law after 20 years. On enquiry, an endorsement was issued by the Additional Commissionercum-Municipal Birth and Death Registrar, Kakinada that the death certificate of Seeram Apparao as Srirambhotla Apparao, was changed pursuant to receiving an application from A-1. g. It is further stated that, in order to manipulate the evidence, A.1 has created a fake voter I.D card with the help of photoshop and created false surname of her husband as Srirambhotla and approached Mee Seva Centre with a fake Voter I.D card, along with notarized affidavit and made an application for change of surname of her husband as Srirambhotla. The de facto complainant also stated that, believing the said documents as genuine, the Municipal Authorities have changed the surname as Srirambhotla without any enquiry. h. On 23/8/2018 the de facto complainant has presented a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, but no action was taken. He made a complaint before the Chief Electoral Officer, Andhra Pradesh for creating a forged Voter I.D., who ordered the District Collector to make a detailed enquiry. i. It is further stated that the de facto complainant has presented a complaint to the Director of Municipal Administration, Andhra Pradesh for changing the death certificate of his father-in-law with a forged and tampered document by A.1. They have ordered the Municipal Commissioner, Kakinada to make a detailed enquiry. i. It is further stated that the de facto complainant has presented a complaint to the Director of Municipal Administration, Andhra Pradesh for changing the death certificate of his father-in-law with a forged and tampered document by A.1. They have ordered the Municipal Commissioner, Kakinada to make a detailed enquiry. A.1 and A.2 joined hands with A.3 to A.8 and deceived the de facto complainant fraudulently resulted in irreparable harm to him.Based on the private complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, a case in C.C.No.578 of 2021 was registered against Accused Nos.1 to 8. j. The proceedings in the said C.C are sought to be quashed by Petitioners/A.1 to A.3, vide this Petition. Hence, the Crl.P. Grounds Sought for Quashment 3. Broadly the following grounds were taken seeking quashment; a. Perusal of entire charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses do not disclose any material proving the allegations against the Petitioner.In view of no incriminating evidence available to prove the guilt of the petitioners, continuation of the charge sheet and the crime against the petitioners is, therefore, untenable. b. Petitioners have no intention to commit cheating. The petitioners disclosed all the facts about their caste prior to the marriage, and de facto complainant and his family members are very much aware of the said facts. c. The allegations made against the petitioners, on merits, are incorrect and untrue.The de facto complainant by making omnibus allegations, roped all the petitioners even though there are no specific allegations. The present complaint has been filed with an oblique motive and malicious intention by making concocted, misconceived, frivolous and vexatious allegations to harass and coerce the petitioners. d. The Police registered present compliant without verifying the averments and allegations made in the compliant and that FIR does not constitute prima facie case attracting any penal offences against the petitioners for the alleged offences. e. The de facto complainant having failed to succeed in their illegal attempts, have resorted to filing the present false complaint based on concocted and false allegations. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri Kalepu Yashwanth, learned counsel for Petitioners, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1 and Ms.P.Saraswathi, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that there is no incriminating material against the petitioners for continuation of criminal proceedings. Heard Sri Kalepu Yashwanth, learned counsel for Petitioners, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1 and Ms.P.Saraswathi, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that there is no incriminating material against the petitioners for continuation of criminal proceedings. He would further submit that the present complaint has been filed based on the omnibus allegations only to harass and coerce the petitioners and for accepting the conditions and demands of the de facto complainant. He woud further submit that, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, as such, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2, in unison, would submit that, there are no grounds to quash the case against petitioners. It is submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners in the complaint would squarely attract the offences alleged against the petitioners and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 7. 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 the proceedings in C.C.No.578 of 2021 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Ss. 420, 464, 468 and 472 read with 34 I.P.C? 8. This Court while summarizing the position of law concerning exercise of Sec. 482 jurisdiction in Konala Bhavani v. State of A.P., 2023 SCC OnLine AP 3605. held thus; "10. Further, Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C. 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. 11. Sec. 482 is are to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice. 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. Sec. 482 is are to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e., to do real and substantial justice. 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. Specific circumstances warranting invocation of powers under Sec. 482 have been strongly emphasized in a catena of decisions, viz., State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal at paras 102 and 103, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, at para 57, etc." 9. Judicial conscience of the court should permit it to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C.A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 . held as follows; "The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage." (emphasis supplied) 10. In Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 (1) INSC 683. the Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the position laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC. made a comprehensive analysis on the application of the Sec.. The Apex Court stressed on the necessity to arrive at a balance between the law enforcement power of the State and the protection of citizens from unjust criminal proceedings. It was observed that the right not to be disturbed without sufficient grounds is one of the mandates under Art 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court stressed on the necessity to arrive at a balance between the law enforcement power of the State and the protection of citizens from unjust criminal proceedings. It was observed that the right not to be disturbed without sufficient grounds is one of the mandates under Art 21 of the Constitution of India. In relation to quashing of F.I.R. and the material that is to be looked into, it was held as follows; "34. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Cr. P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged." (emphasis supplied) 11. With the judicial precedents discussed in mind, it is necessary to analyze the instant case. In crux, the complaint of the husband/ de-facto complainant is that, his wife"s caste and surname were manipulated with false details and the death certificate of her father was manipulated to change these details, by creation of fake voter I.D. To buttress their contention that in these circumstances, criminal proceedings cannot be continued against the Petitioners, they placed reliance on the decision rendered in L.H.V.Prasad and others v. S.H.O., Alwal P.S., and others, 1999 SCC OnLine AP 1089. 12. In L.H.V.Prasad and others (referred supra), the facts were that, the parents of the complainant/husband gave an advertisement seeking marriage alliances, to which Accused No.1 approached furnishing particulars of Accused No.4. Accused No.1 claimed their caste to be "Thoorupu Kapu", while the complainant belonged to "Gajula Balija Naidu"". Later, it was stated by the complainant that the girl belonged to "Konda Kapu", which is a Scheduled Tribe. On this aspect, the complainant filed a complaint contending that he was cheated for accepting the marriage proposal on false representation of the caste. A learned Single Judge of the erstwhile Composite High Court while quashing the crime, observed that unless a girl is treated a property there cannot be an offence under Sec. 415 and it cannot be suggested by anybody that a human being who is given in a marriage is a property within the meaning of Sec. 415 I.P.C. 13. A follow up to the above decision is the Criminal S.L.P. filed by the complainant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 . contending that the interpretation given to Sec. 415 was erroneous. This decision was not brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The Hon'ble Apex Court viewed the interpretation offered by the Learned Single Judge referred supra, as incorrect in the light of the following; "8. Thus, so far as the second part of Sec. 415 is concerned, "property", at no stage, is involved. This decision was not brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The Hon'ble Apex Court viewed the interpretation offered by the Learned Single Judge referred supra, as incorrect in the light of the following; "8. Thus, so far as the second part of Sec. 415 is concerned, "property", at no stage, is involved. Here it is the doing of an act or omission to do an act by the complainant, as a result of intentional inducement by the accused, which is material. Such inducement should result in the doing of an act or omission to do an act as a result of which the person concerned should have suffered or was likely to suffer damage or harm in body, mind, reputation or property. In an old decision of the Allahabad High Court in Empress v. Sheoram [(1882) 2 AWN 237] it was held by Mahmood, J.: "That to palm off a young woman as belonging to a caste different to the one to which she really belongs, with the object of obtaining money, amounts to the offence of cheating by personation as defined in Sec. 416 of the Penal Code, 1860, which must be read in the light of the preceding Sec. 415." (emphasis supplied) 14. However, dismissing the S.L.P.the Hon'ble Apex Court basing on the pertinence of settlement of matrimonial disputes, it was observed that the complainant being a Scientist himself should not attach undue importance to caste. 15. This Court is of the view that the reliance placed on L.H.V. Prasad and others (referred supra), offers no help to the Petitioners herein for twin reasons. Primarily, in view of the interpretation offered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in G.V. Rao(referred supra), which held the view taken on Sec. 415 in L.H.V. Prasad and others (referred supra) as erroneous. It is a settled proposition that statement of law applied to the legal issue raised on the facts by the Hon'ble Apex Courtis a binding precedent on this Court. It is profitable to refer to the decision in Arasmeta Captive Power Co. (P) Ltd. v. Lafarge India (P) Ltd., (2013) 15 SCC 414 . noting this significant principle in doctrine of precedents as follows; "35. In State of Orissa v. Mohd. It is profitable to refer to the decision in Arasmeta Captive Power Co. (P) Ltd. v. Lafarge India (P) Ltd., (2013) 15 SCC 414 . noting this significant principle in doctrine of precedents as follows; "35. In State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas [ (2006) 1 SCC 275 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 122] it has been stated thus : (SCC p. 282, para 12) "12. ... According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates : (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment." (emphasis supplied) 16. Secondly, in the instant case, it is not the case of the de facto complainant that A.1/mother-in-law, claimed that they belong to Brahmin community, so he accepted the proposal of the marriage and later it came to his notice that his wife belongs to Padmasali" community but not Brahmin" community. Allegations were made to the effect that after he came to know the caste of his wife, thereafter A.1 and A.2 with the active support of A.3 to A.8, forged the documents and by using those documents made an application to Mee Seva for change of surname of the husband of A.1 as "Srirambhotla" instead of Seeram". During the course of investigation, it came to notice that the surname of the husband of A.1 is Seeram". 17. It is a trite proposition of law that in deciding criminal cases, courts should keep in mind that each case rests on its own facts.A marriage rests primarily on the mutual promise of trust and confidence of the parties involved. Allegations in the complaint and the averments made in the charge sheet would prima facie disclose that there is an act of cheating and forgery by the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos., 1 and 2 to attract the offences under Ss. 420, 464, 468 and 472 read with 34 IPC. Allegations in the complaint and the averments made in the charge sheet would prima facie disclose that there is an act of cheating and forgery by the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos., 1 and 2 to attract the offences under Ss. 420, 464, 468 and 472 read with 34 IPC. Truthfulness or otherwise of the same, is a matter to be decided by the trial court. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a mini trial. However, perusal of the record shows that, except the omnibus allegations that Accused No.3 supported Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 in forging the documents and using the same for change of surname of the husband of Accused No.1, no material has been placed on record showing the involvement of Accused No.3 in the commission of the offence. Without there being any substantial material to establish the involvement of Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 on mere casual reference, continuation of criminal proceedings against her would be an abuse of process of law. 18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the complaint are sufficient for the trial to be taken up against Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 and2 and thereby, the proceedings against them are not liable to be quashed. However, the proceedings against Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 can be quashed. 19. In the result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the proceedings against Petitioner No.3/Accused No.3 in C.C.No.578 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 464, 468 and 472 read with 34 IPC. The petition against the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Accused Nos.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.