JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Petitioner Shubham Sharma has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.) for quashing of FIR No. 74 of 2022, dated 4.5.2022, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), with Police Station, Amb, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. The petitioner has filed the petition on the ground that his elder brother, namely, Ankush Sharma was married to respondent No. 2, in the year 2018. As per the petitioner, respondent No. 2, for the reasons best known to her, lodged FIR in question, in which, Police has conducted the investigation and submitted chargesheet, against the petitioner, as well as, his brother and parents. There are total four accused in the case, pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 3. According to the petitioner, he has completed his Internship, after passing MBBS in March, 2019 at MGM College, Aurangabad (Maharashtra). Thereafter, he had joined Bhatia Coaching Academy at New Delhi, for the purpose of preparation, for appearing in the NEET-PG examination. 4. As per the case set up by the petitioner, he has nothing to do with the offence, for which, he has been named as accused, in this case. It is the further case of the petitioner that even if the entire allegations, levelled in the FIR, are taken as it is, then, no case is made out against the petitioner. 5. According to the petitioner, he is innocent person and is not even remotely connected with the alleged crime. 5.1 Heavily relying upon the statements of witnesses, recorded during the investigation, the petitioner has prayed that nothing has come out against him, during the investigation. 6. On the basis of above facts, he has prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed by quashing the FIR in question, registered against him. 7. Alongwith the petition, he has annexed the copy of report under Section 173(2) Cr. 6. On the basis of above facts, he has prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed by quashing the FIR in question, registered against him. 7. Alongwith the petition, he has annexed the copy of report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., the complaint made by respondent No.2, copy of the FIR, as well as, statements of the witnesses, recorded during the investigation. All these documents have been annexed to show that no case is made out against him and proceedings initiated against him are nothing, but abuse of process of law. 8. When, put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed reply, by taking preliminary objections, that the petition is not maintainable, as charges have not been framed by the learned trial Court; the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition; the petition is not sustainable in the eyes of law; and that the petitioner has concealed the material facts, from the scrutiny of the Court. 9. On merits, the petition has been contested on the ground that at the instance of respondent No. 2, the FIR in question has been registered, against the petitioner and others, in which, investigation has been conducted and Police has submitted the charge-sheet, before the learned trial Court. It is the specific case of the respondent-State that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons, including the petitioner herein. 10. The prayer, so made in the petition, has further been contested on the ground that there are specific allegations, against the petitioner, in the complaint, moved by respondent No. 2. Reproducing the relevant portion of the complaint, in the reply, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 11. On 23.8.2023, the Police has filed the supplementary status report by reproducing the contents of the FIR and the fact that after investigation, the Police has filed the charge-sheet, against the petitioner and three others, for the commission of offence, under Section 498-A, 323, 406, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, before the learned trial Court. 12. Petitioner is before this Court, under Section 482 Cr. P.C. This Court has to see only the prima-facie case and not to act as trial Court or the appellate Court. If the bare reading of the complaint makes out a prima-facie case against the petitioner, then, powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should not be exercised. 13. 12. Petitioner is before this Court, under Section 482 Cr. P.C. This Court has to see only the prima-facie case and not to act as trial Court or the appellate Court. If the bare reading of the complaint makes out a prima-facie case against the petitioner, then, powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should not be exercised. 13. In this case, criminal machinery was put into motion by respondent No. 2, by filing the complaint, before the Police. The said complaint is consisting of six pages. In the opening lines of the complaint, she has alleged that she was married to Ankush Sharma, on 12.10.2018. After three months of marriage, her husband Ankush Sharma, mother-in-law Shashi Bala and father in law Yashpal Sharma has started harassing her physically and mentally and these persons used to demand money from her and harass her for dowry. She has alleged that her husband Ankush Sharma, father in law Yashpal Sharma and mother in law Shashi Bala also used to beat her. She has further alleged in the complaint that on 14.1.2022, her husband, father-in-law and mother-in- law had thrown out her from the matrimonial home, as well as, her articles. On that day, according to her, after making request to them, they kept her articles inside their house. 13.1 According to the complainant, on 1.4.2022, when she came back after attending her duties from the school, then she found that all the aforesaid persons, i.e. her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law had broken open the lock of her room and put new lock there. Her belongings were also found scattered, but, she did not say anything to them. 14. After sometime, her mother-in-law and petitioner came to her room and started abusing her. Thereafter, she has levelled the general allegations against the four persons by alleging that they used to harass her physically and mentally. 15. The complainant has further alleged that on 3.5.2022, her husband had thrown her out of the room and started searching her Almirah. When, the complainant had requested him to open the room, then, he had started abusing her. She has alleged against her father-in-law and mother-in-law that they used to instigate her husband, against her. According to her, in case, some untoward incident happens with her, then, responsibility of the same will be of her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in- law (petitioner). When, the complainant had requested him to open the room, then, he had started abusing her. She has alleged against her father-in-law and mother-in-law that they used to instigate her husband, against her. According to her, in case, some untoward incident happens with her, then, responsibility of the same will be of her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in- law (petitioner). She has alleged that on 4.5.2022, when, she was working at about 8:30 p.m., in the kitchem, then, her father-in-law and mother-in-law had started abusing her and beaten her. Her husband also misbehaved with her and torn her clothes. 16. During investigation, the Police has recorded the statements of the witnesses. Father of respondent No. 2, in his statement, under Section 161 Cr. P.C., has deposed that whenever husband of the complainant used to come to his house, he alongwith his parents used to harass the complainant, for bringing less dowry. He has further deposed that on 3.5.2022, at about 11:20 p.m., he received a telephonic call from his daughter, who has disclosed that Ankush Sharma, Yashpal Sharma and Shashi Bala had beaten her and misbehaved with her. He has not disclosed that respondent No. 2 had alleged anything against the petitioner. The main thrust of his allegations, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., is against three persons, i.e. Ankush Sharma (husband), Yashpal Sharma (father-in-law)and Shashi Bala (mother-in-law). 17. Similar type of statement has also been made by Savita Devi, who is mother of respondent No. 2. 18. During investigation, police has also recorded the statement of Ganesh Dutt, maternal uncle of respondent No. 2. He has also levelled general allegations against all the four persons, by deposing that they had started harassing respondent No. 2, for bringing less dowry. 19. Similar type of statement has also been made by Meena Devi, under Section 161 Cr. P.C. 20. In the complaint made by respondent No. 2, she has named all the members of the family, as accused. The allegations are against her husband, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law (petitioner). 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and others versus Madan Lal Kapoor, reported in 2013(3) Supreme Court Cases 330, has issued certain directions for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Relevant paragraphs 28 to 30 are reproduced as under: “28. The allegations are against her husband, her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law (petitioner). 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and others versus Madan Lal Kapoor, reported in 2013(3) Supreme Court Cases 330, has issued certain directions for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Relevant paragraphs 28 to 30 are reproduced as under: “28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held. 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- 30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2022) 4 Supreme Court Cases 549 has held that if there are bald allegations, but nothing to justify the same, the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should be exercised to quash the proceedings. Relevant paragraphs 14 and 15 are reproduced, as under: “14. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra) as under : “102. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra) as under : “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. (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.” 15. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others.” 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision in Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab & Anr., 2024 INSC 896 , has held that there is tendency to rope in the entire family in the matrimonial dispute. It has also been held that in case of lack of specific allegations, it is the duty of the Court to consider the contentions, under Section 482 Cr. P.C., whether the allegations, so levelled, against the relatives, make out a prima-facie case, against them, or not. Relevant paragraphs 9 to 12 of the judgment are reproduced, as under: “9. In the decision in Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., this Court observed that it is a matter of common knowledge that in matrimonial disputes exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and the tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy, it was further held therein. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of sufferings of ignominy, it was further held therein. We have no hesitation to hold that the said observation of this Court is in fact, sounding of a caution, against non-discharge of the duty to see whether implication of a person who is not a close relative of the family of the husband is over implication or whether allegation against any such person is an exaggerated version, in matrimonial disputes of this nature. In this context, it is to be noted that the term 'relative' has not been defined in the statute and, therefore, it must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Hence, normally, it can be taken to include, father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson or granddaughter of any individual or the spouse of any person. To put it shortly, it includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. In paragraph 35 of Preeti Gupta's case (supra) it was furthermore held thus:- "The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realties into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment by husband's close relatives 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 complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection." 10. In such circumstances, normally against a person who is not falling under any of the aforesaid categories when allegations are raised, in the light of the observations made in Preeti Gupta's case (supra), the Court concerned owes an irrecusable duty to see whether such implication is over implication and/or whether the allegations against such a person is an exaggerated version. We have already taken note of the fact that except the observation made in paragraph 7 there is no consideration at all of the contentions of accused No.5 in the impugned order. 11. In the decision in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. We have already taken note of the fact that except the observation made in paragraph 7 there is no consideration at all of the contentions of accused No.5 in the impugned order. 11. In the decision in Geeta Mehrotra and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Anr., this Court held that mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them overlooking the tendency of over implication viz., to draw the entire members of the household in the domestic quarrel resulting in matrimonial dispute, especially when it happens soon after the wedding. In the decision in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar & Ors., this Court quashed proceedings in so far as family members of the husband on the ground that the allegations against them are general and ominous in nature. In matters like the one at hand when relatives not residing in the same house where the alleged victim resides, the courts shall not stop consideration by merely looking into the question where the accused is a person falling within the ambit of the expression 'relative' for the purpose of Section 498-A, IPC, but should also consider whether it is a case of over implication or exaggerated version solely to implicate such person(s) to pressurise the main accused. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal4, wherein after considering the statutory provisions and the earlier decisions, this Court referred to various categories of cases where the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C. could be exercised by High Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. One among such categories is where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused. 12. We will proceed to consider the case in respect of accused No.5 a little later and now, will consider the challenge of complainant against quashment of the subject FIR and all consequential proceedings based thereon, qua accused No.6 bearing in mind the above conclusions and decisions. 12. We will proceed to consider the case in respect of accused No.5 a little later and now, will consider the challenge of complainant against quashment of the subject FIR and all consequential proceedings based thereon, qua accused No.6 bearing in mind the above conclusions and decisions. It is to be noted that the impugned order itself would reveal that the learned counsel who appeared for the complainant admitted before the High Court regarding the absence of allegations against accused No.6 as relates offences under Sections 406 and 498-A, IPC. This is discernible from paragraph 6 of the impugned order and it reads thus:- "6. Qua Petitioner No.1, Ld. Counsel admits that so far as Sections 406 and 498-A are concerned, there are no specific allegations. He asserts that offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the IPC have been added later on and the allegations levelled against petitioner No.1 shall well fall within the ambit of Sections 420 IPC and 417 of the IPC." 23.1 In this case, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has raised objections that arguments of learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner, qua the fact that entire family members have been roped-in, in the case, on the general allegations, is not liable to be considered, as powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. are confined only to see whether a prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner or not. 24. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon a recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahmood Ali & others versus State of H.P. & others, 2023 INSC 684 , wherein, it has been held that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case. Relevant paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment are reproduced as under: “12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Relevant paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment are reproduced as under: “12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. 13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. 13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:- “5. …Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6) (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 7. 7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death…..”(Emphasis supplied) 25. Consequently, this Court has to see whether there are ‘specific allegations’ against the petitioner, in this case. 26. As stated above, criminal machinery was swung into motion by an educated lady, by moving a complaint, consisting of six pages, and in the initial paragraphs of this complaint, there were no allegations, against the petitioner, but later on, general allegations have been levelled against him. 26.1 Merely, for the reason that in the incident, allegedly taken place on 1.4.2022, as per the complaint, names of four persons have been mentioned, does not mean that said allegations falls within the definition of ‘specific allegations’. It is highly improbable that said material fact, regarding the incident, which had taken place, on 1.4.2022, had not been disclosed by respondent No. 2 to her parents, as both of them, in their statements, recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., have not uttered even a stray sentence, which would constitute the ‘specific allegations’. 27. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 74/2022, dated 4.5.2022, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, alongwith proceedings resultant thereto, in case No. 16-1 of 2022, pending before the learned trial Court, qua petitioner Shubham Sharma, are quashed. 28. 27. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 74/2022, dated 4.5.2022, registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 406, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, alongwith proceedings resultant thereto, in case No. 16-1 of 2022, pending before the learned trial Court, qua petitioner Shubham Sharma, are quashed. 28. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.