ORDER : 1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘Cr.P.C.’] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No. 2, seeking quashment of proceedings against her in C.C. No. 3109 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur 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 ‘D.P. Act’] 2. Petitioner herein is the sister-in-law of Respondents No. 2/Complainant. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: (a) The marriage of Respondent No. 2/Complainant with Accused No. 1 was performed on 06.11.2015. (b) At the time of marriage, the father of Respondent No. 2 gave dowry or Rs.10,00,000/- 25 sovereigns of gold and 50 tulas of silver articles. (c) Accused No. 1 has been working as a Government Teacher and after the death of the father of Respondent No. 2, they have been residing with the mother of Respondent No. 2. (d) Accused Nos. 2 and 3 used to instigate Accused No. 1 and harass Respondent No. 2 by demanding her to bring more money from her parental home. (e) Accused No. 1 used to harass Respondent No. 2 both physically and mentally by abusing her in filthy language and they did not heed to the words of the elders. (f) As such, Respondent No. 2/Complainant lodged a report with Women Police Station, Guntur Urban against Accused and the same was registered as a case in Crime No. 300 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet against all the Accused for the said offences. 4. Grounds for quashment: Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the present petition is filed by Petitioner/Accused No. 2 to quash the proceedings against her in the above C.C. on the following grounds: (i) Petitioner is innocent and she did not commit any offences and she is falsely implicated in the above crime. (ii) Petitioner/Accused No. 2 is married and she has been residing with her family at Singarayakonda and she is no way concerned with the family affairs of Respondent No. 2 and Accused No. 1. (ii) Petitioner/Accused No. 2 is married and she has been residing with her family at Singarayakonda and she is no way concerned with the family affairs of Respondent No. 2 and Accused No. 1. (iii) On 01.10.2019 the Petitioner got Government Job and on the very next date, Respondent No. 2 filed the present case by implicating the Petitioner. (iv) There is no single allegation mentioned in the previous complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 against Accused No. 1 in Spandana on 30.09.2019. But, after coming to know about the appointment order dt.10.10.2019 of the Petitioner, the present complaint was filed by falsely implicating the Petitioner. (v) The Petitioner never visited the house of Accused No. 1. (vi) The Police without conducting proper investigation, filed charge sheet in the present case for the alleged offences. Therefore, continuation of prosecution against the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 is an abuse of process of law. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 5. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No. 1. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No. 2. 6. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner: (i) Petitioner is the sister-in-law of Respondent No. 2. (ii) Initially a complaint was lodged on 30.09.2019 by Respondent No. 2 against Accused No. 1, wherein, the name of the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 was not referred. (iii) Petitioner got a Government job as Panchayat Secretary on 01.10.2019, which made the Complainant to lodge the present complaint on 02.10.2019 by making some allegations against the Petitioner that she used to harass her. (iv) The present complaint, which is a second one, is a motivated one only to harass the Petitioner and the same is not maintainable. (v) Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 is an abuse of process of law. 7. Arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor: (i) No allegations were made against the Petitioner herein, in the first complaint, but there are allegations against the Petitioner herein, in the second complaint to the effect that the Petitioner used to influence her brother i.e. Accused No. 1 to harass the Complainant to bring more money from her parents. (ii) There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 8. (ii) There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 8. 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 against the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 3109 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur? 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. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 wherein, at Paras 102 and 103, it was held 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. 103. (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) 11. In the case on hand, a fair look at the averments made in the complaint would go to show that, except a casual reference that the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 used to influence her brother i.e. Accused No. 1 to harass Respondent No. 2 to bring more money from her parental home, nothing is attributed against the Petitioner in specific. Further, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 previously lodged a complaint against her husband i.e., Accused No. 1 herein, with the Police on 30.09.2019 and the said complaint does not disclose even a reference of the Petitioner herein. But, in the present complaint, a reference of the Petitioner has been made casually. 12. In Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. 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. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner got Government employment as Panchayat Secretary on 01.10.2019. There is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, since the Petitioner has got Government employment, only to target her, the present complaint has been lodged by making some bald and omnibus allegations against the Petitioner. As per the first guideline of Bhajanlal’s case (supra), even if the allegations made in the present complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. 15. Time and again the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court categorically held that a tendency has been developed for roping in all the relatives of the husband in dowry harassment made in order to pressurize the immediate family of the husband. All the allegations that were made against the Petitioner are either vague or general in nature. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 2 is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion and the decisions referred to supra, this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No. 2 is undesirable and the same are liable to be quashed. 17. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion and the decisions referred to supra, this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No. 2 is undesirable and the same are liable to be quashed. 17. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 3109 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed. 18. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.