ORDER : 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.4 seeking quashment of the proceedings against her in C.C.No.898 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Trying Prohibition and Excise Act Cases, Machilipatnam for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, [for short ‘IPC’] and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, [for short ‘D.P.Act’]. 2. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.M.Subhani, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner/Accused No.4 is the unmarried sister of the husband of Respondent No.2. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the marriage between Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 had taken place on 05.12.2020 and the Petitioner, who was pursuing her studies at Canada, came to India to attend the marriage and again left for Canada on 16.12.2020, whereas, the present case has been registered on 19.05.2022. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, even as per the contents of the compliant, after the marriage, Accused No.1 stayed with Respondent No.2 for a period of two months only and thereafter, he left for Canada and Respondent No.2 stayed with her in-laws for 1 ½ months. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, the jewellary of Respondent No.2 was kept in the Bank account of her month-in-law. There are no specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 for the commission of the alleged offences. Since the Petitioner is unmarried and her marriage prospects may be affected because of the present case. Learned counsel would finally submit that the entire allegations made in the complaint are bald and omnibus. As such, continuation of proceedings against her is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs. State of Bihar & Others, [ (2022) 6 SCC 599 ], Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another, [ (2010) 7 SCC 667 ] and Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083]. 4. 4. Per contra, while reiterating the averments of the counter and additional counter filed on behalf of Respondent No.2, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner for the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that, even after the Petitioner reached Canada, she used to reside with Accused No.1, who was working at Toronto, Canada. Learned counsel would submit that the Petitioner shared the Twitter tweets posted by the husband of Respondent No.2 in her Instagram and after filing of the alleged tweets into the Court, the Petitioner closed her Instagram account. Learned counsel would further submit that on the tweets posted by Accused No.1 over social media tagging various media channels i.e., TV 9 Telugu, Sakshi TV, NDTV, Times of India, TV5, V6 News, NTV Telugu and also tagging to the Prime Minister’s Office, the public had made comments on the same and the same were shared by the Petitioner herein through social media and thereby harassed Respondent No.2 by defaming her reputation and by character assassination. There are abusive words in the said posts. The Court cannot conduct a mini trial while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would submit that these are all the factual aspects to be decided during trial and the proceedings against the Petitioner, at this stage, cannot be quashed. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh etc., [2023 Live Law (SC) 292], High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Shubham & Others Vs. The State of M.P., and another, [Misc.Criminal Case No.41764 of 2022, dated 15.06.2023] and High Court of Kerala in Nimija Vs. State of Kerala & another, [Crl.M.C.No.9443 of 2022, dated 15.11.2024]. Point for Determination 5. 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 against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.898 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Trying Prohibition and Excise Act Cases, Machilipatnam? Determination by the Court 6. Determination by the Court 6. 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. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. 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 Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 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. (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) 7. As seen from the contents of the complaint, it is alleged that, the marriage of Respondent No.2 was performed with Accused No.1 on 05.12.2020 with Accused No.1, who was working as a Software Engineer in Scotia Bank, Toronto, Canada. At the time of marriage, there was exchange of dowry of Rs.15.00 lakhs and 25 sovereigns of gold to the family of the Accused. After the marriage, Respondent No.2 came to know that her in-laws and the Petitioner herein, were of the view to break the marital tie of Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1. It is further alleged that, the Petitioner herein along with her parents’ created disputes between Respondent No.2 and her husband. The mother-in-law of Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner herein forcibly obtained her gold jewellery from her and kept the same with them. Petitioner used to instigate Accused No.1 to give divorce to Respondent No.2. Subsequently, at their instigation, Accused No.1 developed aversion towards Respondent No.2. He used to suspect her fidelity. After staying with Respondent No.2 for two months, Accused No.1 went to Canada and thereafter for 1 ½ months, Respondent No.2 stayed at her in-laws’ house. During that stay, her in-laws used to demand her to give divorce to Accused No.1 and threatened to kill her. Her father-in-law used to harass her sexually. Accused Nos.1 to 3 used to demand her to bring additional dowry of Rs.25.00 lakhs. Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to propagate her character as bad in the relatives. 8. During that stay, her in-laws used to demand her to give divorce to Accused No.1 and threatened to kill her. Her father-in-law used to harass her sexually. Accused Nos.1 to 3 used to demand her to bring additional dowry of Rs.25.00 lakhs. Accused Nos.2 and 3 used to propagate her character as bad in the relatives. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner used to share the tweets posted by the husband of Respondent No.2 in her Instagram and thereby harassed Respondent No.2 by defaming her reputation and character and there abusive words in the said posts. For ready reference, the said posts, which are filed by Respondent No.2, are extracted hereunder: “Sir, we give great privilege to women and their safety.Can we also have similar emphasis for men who have been suffered by women abusing them. Pain and suffering of men and their family is given a blind eye. Wife extorts money from husband in various ways and files a false dowry case making husbands family suffer emotionally, financially and the stress eats them away. My mom had a heart attack knowing of such false dowry case against me. Old parents become true victims and they don’t even voice their pain suffering, dealing with all the lies and loss of dignity. I hope your request address correctly before it hurts more family member by @siddharthkasuha @ APPOLICE100. You could get Quash, means to nullify, void or declare invalid. The procedure is used in both criminal and civil cases when there is an irregularity or defect in procedures. Don’t worry beta. Right now you take care of your mother and sister. Thank you uncle. Razik don’t worry and definitely the true side of her acts will come out and u will be happy … pls tc of your mother and my sister Jareena. Stay Strong. Now a days these types of women’s harassing innocent men’s family for easy money earning. Brother pls take care your mother health.” 9. At this stage it is apposite to extract Section 498-A IPC, which reads as follows: “498A. Stay Strong. Now a days these types of women’s harassing innocent men’s family for easy money earning. Brother pls take care your mother health.” 9. At this stage it is apposite to extract Section 498-A IPC, which reads as follows: “498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty .—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty”means— (a) anywilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]” 10. A bare perusal of the above provision and the above postings in the social media by Accused No.1 and the contents of the complaint would show that, there are no specific allegations raised against the Petitioner/Accused No.4, to attract the offence as defined under Section 498-A IPC. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, there are no abusive words in the said postings. Further, it is not the case of Respondent No.2 that she stayed with the Petitioner herein and the other Accused under one roof. Admittedly, the Petitioner was at Canada pursuing her studies at the relevant time. 11. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, [ AIR 2000 SC 2324 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:- “For the fault of the husband, the in-laws or the other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. In cases where such accusation are made, the overt acts attributed to persons other than husband are required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. By mere conjectures and implications such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to dowry deaths. A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case.” (emphasis supplied) 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and another, [ 2024 INSC 369 ], highlighted the requirement of taking the realities into consideration and legislating, especially in the context of the Sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The relevant observations made in the context of the present case highlighting the duty of this Court, in the said judgment is as follows; “25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute .” (emphasis supplied) 13. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these matrimonial 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 matrimonial 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. It is reiterated in various precedents that 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 on husband's close relations who live in different cities and never or rarely visit the matrimonial home of the parties have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 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. 14. Now-a-days, there is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out. No doubt, the inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by law. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner/Accused No.4 has been roped into the present case with a view to harass the family of the Accused though she has been staying away from the family of Respondent No.2. There are no allegations raised against the Petitioner in specific to attract the alleged offences against her. In the absence of any specific role attributed to the Petitioner, it would be unjust if the Petitioner is forced to go through the tribulations of a trial. The judgements relied on by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 are not helpful to the case of Respondent No.2, since the facts of the said cases are different from the facts of the present case. The judgements relied on by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 are not helpful to the case of Respondent No.2, since the facts of the said cases are different from the facts of the present case. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion and the judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the view that, there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioner/Accused No.4 to prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the Petitioner, as such, continuation of the proceedings against her is a sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 17. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed, by quashing proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.4 in C.C.No.898 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Trying Prohibition and Excise Act Cases, Machilipatnam for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.