JUDGMENT 1. The instant petition under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [in short 'Cr.P.C'] has been filed, by the petitioners/A.3 and A.4, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.106 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, which was registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [in short, 'I.P.C.'] and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, [in short, 'D.P.Act'] . 2. Petitioners herein are Accused Nos.3 and 4 in the above C.C and Petitioner No.1 is the sister-in-law of Respondent No.2/de facto complainant and Petitioner No.2 is the husband of Petitioner No.1. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: a. The marriage of the de facto complainant was performed with Accused No.1 on 22/11/2010 according to Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the de facto complainant presented 22 tulas of gold ornaments to Accused No.1, towards dowry. Accused No.1 was then working as Staff Assistant in D.C.C.Bank, Kamalapuram. During wedlock, de facto complainant gave birth to a male and a female child. Accused Nos.1 to 4 asked the de facto complainant, to give her daughter to the petitioners/A.3 and A.4 to feed her, as they have no issues, for which the de facto complainant did not agree. As such, all the accused used to harass the de facto complainant both physically and mentally. b. In the meantime, Accused No.1 was transferred to Sundupalli and then the accused demanded the de facto complainant to bring additional dowry of Rs.2, 00, 000.00. Though the de facto complainant expressed the inability of her parents to give the said amount, all the accused did not heed to her. On information given by the de facto complainant, when her parents came to the house of the accused, they were abused by the accused in filthy language. All the accused necked the de facto complainant out of the house stating that they will perform another marriage to Accused No.1. The panchayat held by the elders 3 was not successful. c. The de facto complainant lodged a report against all the accused, based on which a case in Crime No.11 of 2019 for the offence under Sec. 498-A read with 34 IPC and Ss. The panchayat held by the elders 3 was not successful. c. The de facto complainant lodged a report against all the accused, based on which a case in Crime No.11 of 2019 for the offence under Sec. 498-A read with 34 IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act was registered by III Town Police, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District against the accused. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was filed by the Police before the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur for the above said offence and the same was numbered as C.C.No.106 of 2019. d. This C.C is sought to be quashed by Petitioners/A.3 and A.4, vide this Petition. Hence, the Crl.P. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri K.Dhanamjaya Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein are the sister-in-law and her husband and they have been residing separately. He would submit that there are no specific allegations against the petitioners and as such, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 6. Refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for Respondent No.2, in unison, would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against petitioners and the allegations made against the petitioners would squarely attract the offence under Sec. 498-A read with 34 of the I.P.C and Ss. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and therefore, the criminal proceedings should not be quashed against petitioners. Point for Determination 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows; Whether the case against the Petitioners/A.3 and A.4 in C.C.No.106 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Determination by the Court 8. Determination by the Court 8. A bare perusal of Sec. 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 Sec. 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. 9. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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. (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 Sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec. 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 Sec. 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) 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141 in the context of quashment of matrimonial criminal proceedings, held as follows: "18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Sec. 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. 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) 11. 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) 11. In the present case, a bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that all the accused asked the de facto complainant to give her daughter to petitioners/A.3 and A.4 to feed her, as they have no children. But, the de facto complainant did not agree and since then they have increased their harassment. In the meantime, Accused No.1 was transferred to Sundupalli. Then, all the accused demanded Rs.2, 00, 000.00 to get Accused No.1 transferred to Kadapa or Kamalapuram. 12. As can be seen from Bhajanlal's case supra, the 1st guideline is to the effect that even if the complaint allegations are accepted to be true on their face, if they do not constitute any offence, then the FIR can be quashed. When the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet are perused, there are no pivotal allegations made against the petitioners/A.3 and A.4. Even on the face of it, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners to proceed further in this matter. It is not uncommon to see that the family members of the husband are roped in criminal case to settle their scores. In such circumstances, this Court can exercise the inherent powers under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the decisions referred to supra, this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 is undesirable and the same are liable to be quashed. 13. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C.No.106 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, for the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A read with 34 IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.