JUDGMENT /ORDER : 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 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in CC No.229 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla, Kurnool District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 509 read with 34 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 No.1/accused No.1 is the husband. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.3/accused No.3 is the sister-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows : (a) The marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was performed on 21.08.2014. (b) At the time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 gave Rs.6.00 lakhs towards dowry, dahez articles worth Rs.2.00 lakhs and also presented 20 tulas of gold to the accused. (c) They both lived at Allagadda Town alongwith accused Nos.2 and 3 as the husband of accused No.3 was working in Army. (d) During wedlock, respondent No.2 gave birth to a male child. (e) Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 used to demand respondent No.2 to bring additional dowry, otherwise, they would perform another marriage to accused No.1. (f) Thereafter, petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing respondent No.2 and used to beat her, threatened with dire consequences and sent her to her parental home. (g) The Panchayat held by the parents of respondent No.2 to settle the disputes, proved futile. (h) On 07.12.2019 while respondent No.2 was at her parental home in Kristipadu Village, petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 went there, beat her with hands and kicked her with legs and also threatened with dire consequences. (i) Having no other go, respondent No.2/complainant lodged private complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla, Kurnool District, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 509 read with 34 PC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was numbered as CC No.229 of 2019. Grounds for quashment : 4. (i) Having no other go, respondent No.2/complainant lodged private complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla, Kurnool District, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 509 read with 34 PC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was numbered as CC No.229 of 2019. Grounds for quashment : 4. Aggrieved by the registration of the said case, the present petition is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings against them in the above CC on the following grounds : (i) The complainant has not filed the affidavit in support of her private complaint, which is mandatory as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287 . (ii) The allegations mentioned in the complaint as well as the charge-sheet, do not make out any offence against the petitioners and there are no allegations which would constitute the alleged offences against the petitioners. (iii) The allegations levelled against the petitioners are bald and omnibus. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 5. Heard Sri K. Chetan, learned Counsel representing Sri B. Dhanumjaya, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/respondent No.1 and Sri Sohail Shareef, learned Counsel representing Sri Syed Kaleemulla, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 had taken place on 21.08.2014 and the coupled was blessed with a male child. Learned Counsel would submit that, except the trivial family disputes, nothing is alleged against the petitioners. It is submitted that the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 is bereft of important details of the alleged harassment. Learned Counsel further submits that petitioner/accused No.2 is the sister of accused No.1 and she is married and her husband has been working in Army, as such, she used to reside with her parents. It is submitted that nothing has been attributed against accused No.3. Learned Counsel further submits that respondent No.2 failed to file an affidavit which is violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case (supra), which is mandatory to entertain a private complaint. 7. It is submitted that nothing has been attributed against accused No.3. Learned Counsel further submits that respondent No.2 failed to file an affidavit which is violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case (supra), which is mandatory to entertain a private complaint. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that whatever the points raised in the present petition, are the matter of trial. However, non-filing of affidavit is not a ground for quashment, since it is a curable defect. Learned Counsel further submits that specific allegations are there in the complaint against all the petitioners and hence, prayed for dismissal of 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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in CC No.229 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla, Kurnool District? 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. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , wherein, it was 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. 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. 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) 11. In the context of quashment of matrimonial proceedings, 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 498-A 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. 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) 12. In the case on hand, it is alleged in the charge-sheet that accused Nos.2 and 3 used to reside alongwith accused No.1 and respondent No.2 that petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 used to harass respondent No.2 by demanding to bring additional dowry. It is also alleged that on 07.12.2019 while respondent No.2 was at her parental home, petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 went there, beat her with hands and kicked her with legs and also threatened with dire consequences. Whereas, the complaint filed by respondent No.2 would show that, after the marriage, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 lived together for a couple of months. Even after the birth of the male child, the couple stayed together for some days. 13. As rightly put by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, except a casual reference that accused No.3 used to stay at her parents' house, since her husband was working in Army, nothing is attributed against petitioner/accused No.3 in specific. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.3 are not suffice to attract the alleged offences against her. However, there are specific allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.3 are not suffice to attract the alleged offences against her. However, there are specific allegations against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there are no specific allegations against all the petitioners, is not tenable since there are specific overt acts attributed against petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and the veracity of the said allegations has to be decided during the course of trial. When there is a material to proceed further against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, it is not a fit case to entertain the quashment against them. 14. So far as the requirement of filing a sworn affidavit is concerned, in Priyanka Srivastava's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: "27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a Criminal Court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIT." (Emphasis supplied) 15. In the case on hand, it appears that the complainant has not filed a sworn affidavit in compliance of the mandate in the decision of Priyanka Srivastava's case (supra). However, it is a curable defect and the Magistrate can direct the complainant to file sworn affidavit at any stage and the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings against all the petitioners. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion and the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the view that, since there are no specific allegations against the petitioner/accused No.3, the proceedings against her can be quashed and the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall continue. 17. Accordingly, the criminal petition is partly allowed by quashing proceedings against accused No.3 in CC No.229 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla, Kurnool District, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 509 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The criminal petition against the petitioners accused Nos.1 and 2, is hereby dismissed. 18. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.