T. Rajani, J.

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners, who are accused 1 to 4 seeking for quash of further proceedings in CC. No. 1949 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathupally.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and with their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Perused the record.

3. The grounds of quash are as follows:

The allegations of the complainant are that, at the time of marriage of the defacto-complainant with A1 her parents offered cash of Rs. 15 lakhs, 20 tulas of gold and a plot at Sathupally. After marriage, the petitioners were insisting the complainant to sell the plot and bring the amount. The first petitioner converted into Islam religion and is following Muslim traditions. The allegations made by the defacto-complainant do not attract the definition of cruelty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code neither Section 420 IPC nor sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, There is absolutely no demand or acceptance of dowry alleged in the complaint. The allegations in the charge sheet are totally vague and ambiguous. No details are forthcoming and it is a clear case of abuse of process of law. The statements enclosed with the charge sheet do not even prima facie disclose any offence against the petitioners.

4. Counsel for the petitioners, in answer to the suggestion made by this Court, to approach the Court below and file a discharge petition, taking all the pleas, which are taken before the Court, contends that, in certain circumstances this Court has inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Counsel relies on several decisions, which can be taken up successively.

Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2950 wherein the facts of the case, as observed by the Supreme Court, are that the complaint is sadly vague and it did not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by the appellants in the commission of offence. The above decision is completely rendered on facts of that case and no principles with regard to the ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 are laid down.

Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2010 SC 3363 is also relied upon by the counsel and the counsel persuades this Court to go through paras 33 and 35 of the said decision and appreciate the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners. It would be profitable to extract the said paras, in order to avoid any comment that the contentions of the petitioners are not met with and appreciated properly. The relevant paras are as under:

"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 rancour, 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.

35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for