ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C.No. 3634 of 2024 on the file ofi the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad are parents of Accused no.1. It is stated, due to disputes, Accused No.1 and his wife i.e. Respondent No.2 are living separately since 14-11-2022. When Accused No.1 filed FCOP No. 153 of 2023 for dissolution of marriage before the II Additional Family Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, Respondent No.2 lodged a false complaint not only against Accused No.1 but also against petitioners and other family members for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC. and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act, wherein charge sheet was filed against Accused 1 to 3 and dropped the case against Accused 4 to 7. The prosecution while dropping the case against A4 to A7, stated that "During the course of investigation also same facts revealed and the allegations of harassment against A4 to 7 are not proved in the investigation." Even the case against these petitioners stand on the same footing and the police would have dropped the case against them also. It is pertinent to mention here that during investigation except recording the statements of LWs, who are family members of Respondent no.2 and colleting proofs of marriage, the police have done nothing. Therefore, they seek to quash the case in C.C. No. 3634 of 2024, on the file of XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 1.1. According to petitioners, the charge sheet read as a whole, does not disclose commission of any offence, much less the offences complained of by Respondent No.2 against Petitioners herein; they have been falsely implicated in the case as the allegations in the complaint and the charge sheet do not attract offences alleged by the prosecution. It is stated, petitioners are suffering from age-related ailments, specifically Petitioner no.2 is suffering from cardiac issues. 2. In the counter filed by Respondent No.2, it is stated, on the demand of the Accused, her parents gave gold and silver articles, apart from other articles at the time of marriage and performed the marriage at a grand level. Accused No. 1 was selected as a constable and thereafter, accused started harassing her for more dowry. 2. In the counter filed by Respondent No.2, it is stated, on the demand of the Accused, her parents gave gold and silver articles, apart from other articles at the time of marriage and performed the marriage at a grand level. Accused No. 1 was selected as a constable and thereafter, accused started harassing her for more dowry. It is stated, Respondent No.2 delivered a boy and as per the demand of Accused, her parents gave gold ornaments of 7 tulas, silver and other articles, however, petitioner No.2 beat her black and blue as gold necklace was not presented. Petitioners used to say that as Accused No. 1 got a government job, they would get more dowry. 2.1. It is stated, Respondent No.2 became pregnant for the second time, at the time of delivery, she was not taken to hospital and midwife was brought who informed that she be taken to the hospital immediately; her father came and took her to C.C. Sharoof Hospital, Kacheguda where petitioner No.2 created a big scene and abused her. She delivered second son on 21-11-2019 and the child was not doing well, doctors suggested therapy and exercises, but Accused opposed, so Respondent No.2’s father took her and child to their home and got treatment at Uttage Physical Therapy Centre, however, Accused No. 1 did not allow the completion of treatment. It is also stated, Accused wanted to get rid of Respondent No.2. Many panchayats were held, but of no avail. Accused No.1 used to say there are lot of children surviving on the roads, so do not worry about the child. Elder son was always fed with outside food by in-laws and the child developed infection and was crying with pain for four days, but Accused No. 1 did not take the child to the hospital and said there is no need to worry, but when the child could not bear any long, Respondent No.2 forced Accused No. 1 to take the child to hospital and was told that the child has developed serious infection and need to undergo hospitalization, but Accused No. 1 did not allow the child to undergo complete treatment. 2.2. 2.2. Meanwhile, it is stated, Accused No. 1 attitude became very aggressive and irresponsible; elder son Neehal was admitted in KIMS Hospital and had to undergo extensive therapy; Accused No. 1 beat Respondent No.2 in the hospital and was rescued by the nurses; Accused No. 1 took away her gold ornaments and silver leg patti and demanded Rs. 50,000/-; her father gave Rs. 20,000/-; Neehal situation became worse and required bone marrow transplantation, which was donated by Accused No. 1. On 13-03-2021, Accused beat and house- arrested Respondent No.2 who, in turn, called her father who, on 14-03-2021, gave a complaint in Kacheguda Police Station, but Accused No. 1 mislead the police who left the place. On 15-03-2021, Respondent No.2 gave a complaint in WPS and was sent to Osmania Hospital. The Accused have forcefully kept children and neglected their welfare. Left with no other option she gave a Domestic Violence Complaint numbered as DVC 290 of 2021 before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad, which is pending. 2.3. It is also stated, a panchayat was held wherein Accused apologized and Accused No. 1 promised to look-after Respondent No.2 and children well and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 08-12-2021, however, accused did not implement the same, hence, Respondent No.2 again had to come back to her parent's house. Meanwhile, on 07-10-2024 in DVC No. 290 of 2021, this Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 12,000/- to De-facto Complainant and children; Accused No. 1 is paying, but has not cleared the dues as per the Court’s order. All the Accused harassed Respondent No.2 for want of additional dowry and are trying to get rid of her and children to get Accused No. 1 remarried for more dowry, as the latter is now working in Police Department. Accused No. 1 filed O.P. No. 153 of 2023 before the II Additional Family Court, at Hyderabad for divorce. Accused 2 and 3 are the main culprits who are greedy for money and all the above aspects will come to the fore once trial is conducted. 3. Heard Smt. K. Sridevi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V. Jitender Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf Respondent No.1 and Ms. Y. Harini, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 4. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it is to be noted that there are specific allegations against petitioners by Respondent No.2. 3. Heard Smt. K. Sridevi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V. Jitender Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf Respondent No.1 and Ms. Y. Harini, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 4. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it is to be noted that there are specific allegations against petitioners by Respondent No.2. The allegations on petitioners / accused prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Truth or otherwise of the allegations would only come out during the course of trial, therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings at this stage. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra , Crl.A.No. 4003 of 2024 , wherein it was observed that ‘the charge sheet is on record and we have examined it carefully, it simply reproduces all the wordings of the complaint. There is nothing new even after investigation, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint are exactly the allegations in the charge sheet. Even otherwise, the position of law is well entrenched. There is no prohibition against quashing of the criminal proceedings even after the charge sheet has been filed’. The said judgment is not applicable in the present case. 6. In this connection, it is apt to note some judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra , (2021) 19 SCC 401 , the Supreme Court relying on its previous decisions has laid down the following factors to be considered while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. : “.... iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra) has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR." 7. Similarly, in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 795 , the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution. 8. In view of the above settled law and also in view of discussion supra, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.