ORDER : This writ petition is filed calling for the records in Crime No.240 of 2016 on the file of the Women Police Station, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 114 of I.P.C and quash the same. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 07-01-2007, his marriage was performed with 3rd respondent at Jwalamuki Goddess Temple, Varigonda, T.P Gudur Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, and they lived happily for three years, and thereafter they shifted to Cheruku Thota, NTR Nagar, Nellore. Later the 1st petitioner assured 3rd respondent that he would take her to Army Quarters after a year, and also advised her to join as Teacher, as the 3rd respondent has completed Hindi Pandit Course, that there will be demand for Hindi Teacher in the Northern States. Believing the same, she joined as Private Teacher in a Private School and working as such. Later, due to some disputes, the 1st petitioner refused to join the 3rd respondent. While so, the 3rd respondent has brought the said issue to the notice of the Commanding Officer through Zillah Sainik Welfare Officer. Basing on the complaint of the 3rd respondent, the Police, Women Police Station, Nellore, S.P.S.P. Nellore District-2nd respondent has registered a case in Crime No.240 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 114 of I.P.C and proceeding with the investigation. It is also stated that, the District Sainik Welfare Officer has brought the complaint of the 3rd respondent to the notice of the 1st petitioner Commanding Officer, who inturn has directed the District Sainik Welfare Officer to enquire into the matter. Thereafter, the District Sainik Welfare Officer has addressed a letter in Ref.CF/15775411/KJRK/205/A dated 30.06.2014 to the District Collector, Y.S.R District to ascertain the genuinity of the Marriage Certificate produced by the 3rd respondent, as the same was obtained from MRO, Gopavaram. In-turn the District Collector, Y.S.R.District has issued the proceedings in Ref.No.C1/601/M/2014, dated 22-07-2014 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet requesting him to go through the contents and submit the detailed report along with relevant documents, enquiry report and specific remarks in the matter for submission to the concerned Officer. In-turn the District Collector, Y.S.R.District has issued the proceedings in Ref.No.C1/601/M/2014, dated 22-07-2014 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet requesting him to go through the contents and submit the detailed report along with relevant documents, enquiry report and specific remarks in the matter for submission to the concerned Officer. Inturn, as per the directions issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet the Tahsildar, Gopavaram has enquired about the genuinity of the marriage Certificate submitted by the respondent No.3 and submitted her report in Ref.B/295/2015, dated 04-05-2015 to the effect that, the details of the marriage Certificate, dated 15-02-2013 is not found in their office records. On receiving the copy of the same, the Col, SOB (D and V) HQ, Southern Command has closed the proceedings in C/2408112/2215/DV-3, dated 16.06.2016. In the report submitted by Tahsildar, Gopavaram, holding that, the Marriage certificate produced by 3rd respondent was found to be fake. Upon receipt of the proceedings dated 16.06.2016 the 3rd respondent hatched a plan to implicate the 1st petitioner in criminal case and narrated a concocted story and succeed in implicating the petitioners in the present case. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. This Court vide order dated 11.04.2017, while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to registration of Crime No.240 of 2016 on the file of 2nd respondent, until further orders. 4. Heard Sri D.Dorababu, learned counsel representing Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submitted that there was no prima facie evidence of marriage of the 1st petitioner with 3rd respondent and the marriage certificate dated 15.02.2013 issued by the Tahsildar was found to be not genuine by the letter of the Tahsildar, Gopavaram dated 4.5.2015. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that, the subject matter of investigation in Crime No.240 of 2016, as per the orders of this Court, investigation was stopped. Unless and until, a full fledged investigation is conducted by the investigating agency, the innocence of the petitioners/alleged accused cannot be made out. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while denying the allegations made in the petition, contended that, the subject matter of investigation in Crime No.240 of 2016, as per the orders of this Court, investigation was stopped. Unless and until, a full fledged investigation is conducted by the investigating agency, the innocence of the petitioners/alleged accused cannot be made out. Basing on the total outcome of the investigation, appropriate report under Section 173 Cr.P.C would be filed before this Court. Therefore, learned Assistant Government submits that the interim orders need to be vacated so as to enable the investigating agency to proceed with further investigation into the case. There are no specific grounds to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners when the investigation is at the initial stage. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions reported in (i) Joseph Salvaraja versus State of Gujarat and others, (2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 59, wherein the Apex Court held that : In fact, all these questions have been elaborately discussed by this Court in the most oft quoted judgment reported in 1992 (Suppl) 1 SCC 335 State of Haryana Vs. BhajanLal, where seven cardinal principles have been carved out before cognizance of offences, said to have been committed, by the accused Crl. A. @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2409 of 2007 is taken. The case in hand unfortunately does not fall in that category where cognizance of the offence could have been taken by the court, at least after having gone through the F.I.R., which discloses only a civil dispute. 28. The Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against the Appellant and Complainant- Respondent No. 4, and is still subjudice. In the said suit, the Appellant is at liberty to contest the same on grounds available to him in accordance with law as per the leave granted by Trial Court. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not been able to show that at any material point of time there was any contract, much less any privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4 - the Complainant. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not been able to show that at any material point of time there was any contract, much less any privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4 - the Complainant. There was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant as neither the Complainant had to receive the money nor he was in any Crl. A. @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2409 of 2007 way instrumental to telecast "GOD TV" in the central areas of Ahmedabad. He appears to be totally a stranger to the same. Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance with the principles of law. 29. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution of the Appellant for commission of the alleged offences would be clear abuse of the process of law. (ii) in another case reported in Anand Kumar Mohatta and another versus State of Delhi, Department of Home and another, (2019) 11 Supreme Court Cases 706, wherein it was held that : In State of Haryana and Ors. v. BhajanLal and Ors.5, this Court has set out the categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised. Para 102 of the judgment reads 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. (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.” (iii) In another case reported in Abhishek versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, wherein the Apex Court held that : “This being the factual backdrop, we may note at the very outset that the contention that the appellants’ quash petition against the FIR was liable to be dismissed, in any event, as the chargesheet in relation thereto was submitted before the Court and taken on file, needsmention only to be rejected. It is well settled that the High Court would continue to have the power to entertain and act upon a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR even when a chargesheet is filed by the police during the pendency of such petition.” (iv) In another case reported in Manoj Sharma versus State and others, (2008) 16 SCC 1 , wherein the Apex Court held that : The question whether a First Information Report under Sections 420/468/471/34/120-B IPC can be quashed either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution, when the accused and the complainant have compromised and settled the 1 matter between themselves, is the question which arises for decision in this appeal. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the facts involved in this case, and we are not inclined to accept Mr. Singh’s contention that the decision in B.S. Joshi’s case requires reconsideration, at least not in the facts of this case. What was decided in B.S. Joshi’s case was the power and authority of the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash offences which are not compoundable. The law stated in the said case simply indicates the powers of the High Court to quash any criminal proceeding or First Information Report or complaint whether it be compoundable or not. The ultimate exercise of discretion under Section 482 CrPC or under Article 226 of the Constitution is with the Court which has to exercise such jurisdiction in the facts of each case. It has been explained that the said power is in no way limited by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC. 5 We are unable to disagree with such statement of law. In any event, in this case, we are only required to consider whether the High Court had exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. legally and correctly. In our view, the High Court’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The First Information Report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. In our view, the High Court’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The First Information Report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the First Information Report was the basis of the investigation by the Police authorities, but 6 the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. We do not suggest that while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court could not have refused to quash the First Information Report, but what we do say is that the matter could have been considered by the High Court with greater pragmatism in the facts of the case. As we have indicated hereinbefore, the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case. 9. In the facts of this case we are of the view that continuing with the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility. (v) In a case of Pepsi Foods Ltd and another versus Special Judicial Magistrate and others, (1998) 5 SCC 749 , wherein the Apex Court held that: The questions which arise for consideration are if in the circumstances of the case, the appellants rightly approached the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and if so, was the High Court justified in refusing to grant any relief to the appellants because of the view which it tool of the law and the facts of the case. We have, thus, to examine the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and section 482 of the Code. It is settled that High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. We have, thus, to examine the power of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and section 482 of the Code. It is settled that High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. In State of Haryana and others vs. BhajanLal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this court examined the extraordinary power under article 226 of the Constitution and also the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which it said could be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While laying down certain guidelines where the court will exercise jurisdiction under these provisions, it was also stated that these guidelines could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to the followed by the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One of such guideline is 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. Under Article 227 the power of superintendence by the High Court is not only of administrative nature but is also of judicial nature. This article confers vast powers on the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of law by the inferior courts and to see that the stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure, The power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution and under Section 482 of the Code have no limits but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised invoking these powers. When the exercise of powers could be under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code it may not always be necessary to invoke the provisions of Article 226. Some of the decisions of this Court laying down principles for the exercise of powers by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 may be referred to. When the exercise of powers could be under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code it may not always be necessary to invoke the provisions of Article 226. Some of the decisions of this Court laying down principles for the exercise of powers by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 may be referred to. In Babhutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarte and another [ AIR 1975 SC 1297 = (1975) 1 SCC 858 ] this Court again reaffirmed that the power of superintendence of High Court under Article 227 being extraordinary was to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases. It said that the High Court could not, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or tribunal and that its function was limited to seeing that the subordiante court or tribunal functioned within the limits of its authority and that it could not correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence or reappreciating it. The Court further said that the jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised, "as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. It does not lie in order to bring up an order or decision for rehearing of the issues raised in the proceedings." The Court referred with approval the dictum of Morris, L.J. in Rex vs. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal [1952-1 All ER 122]. In NagendraNath Bora vs. The Commissioner of Hills Division [ 1958 SCR 1240 ] this Court observed as under: "It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Art.227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasijudicial nature, are not greater than the power under Art of the Constitution, Under Art the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Art. 227 of the Constitution, the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority." It is no comfortable thought for the appellants to be told that they could appear before the court which is at a far off place in the Ghazipur in the State of Uttar Pradesh, seek their release on bail and then to either move an application under Section 245(2) of the Code or to face trial when the complaint and the preliminary evidence recorded makes out no case against the. it is certainly one of those cases where there is an abuse of the process of the law and the courts and the High Court should not have shied away in exercising its jurisdiction. Provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code are devised to advance justice and not to frustrate it. In our view High Court should not have adopted such a rigid approach which certainly has led to miscarriage of justice in the case. Power of judicial review is discretionary but this was a case where the High Court should have exercised it. (vi) In another case reported in Kapil Agarwal and others versus Sanjay Sharma and others, (2021) 5 SCC 524 , wherein the Apex Court held that : “….However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.PC. In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC..” 8. On perusing the material on record and on perusing the complaint, it is observed that, the sum and substance of the complaint of the 3rd respondent is that the marriage of the complainant was performed with 1st petitioner and after the marriage both of them resided at Sakilamvari Street, Nellore city and lead their marital life. Thereafter, as the disputes arose between them, the 1st petitioner harassed the 3rd respondent both physically and mentally and developed illegal intimacy with A2 and neglected the complainant and left the complaint alone and joined in Army and did not return. 9. Thereafter, as the disputes arose between them, the 1st petitioner harassed the 3rd respondent both physically and mentally and developed illegal intimacy with A2 and neglected the complainant and left the complaint alone and joined in Army and did not return. 9. It is further observed that, basing on the complaint of the 3rd respondent, 2nd respondent registered a case in Crime No.240 of 2016. During the course of investigation, the investigation Officer has examined as many as 12 witnesses and recorded their statements. When the investigation is at the initial stage, the petitioners filed the present writ petition and at the stage of admission, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the said crime until further orders. So, whatever the objections raised by the parties in this case have to be decided during the course of the investigation and trial only. 10. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the respondent police are directed to complete the investigation and file appropriate final report. Further, till completion of investigation and till filing of final report, they are directed not to arrest the petitioners/accused. No costs. 11. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.