ORDER :

1. The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by A1 and A2, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 649 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners/A1 and A2 and another for the offences punishable under Sections 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage between the defacto complainant/2nd respondent herein, and the accused No. 1 was performed on 15.05.2021 at Alekhya function hall, Ananthapuramu town. During marriage alliance, A1 to A3 demanded cash of Rs. 25,00,000/- and 25 tulas gold towards dowry. LW-2 M. Bhavani presumed and believed that it is a good marriage alliance and agreed their demand. But, at the time of marriage, they arranged cash of Rs. 15,00,000/- only and informed them to pay remaining amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- later. After the marriage, A1 did not lead conjugal life up to three days. Later all the accused harassed her physically and mentally demanding to get remaining dowry from her mother, otherwise, they would not allow to lead marital life. In these circumstances, the defacto complainant has resorted in filing the present complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that even accepting the entire accusations to be true, still no offence under Section 498A IPC would be made out as against the petitioners, and except the accusations, which are omnibus in nature, there is absolutely no other material to connect the petitioners/A1 and A2 to the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that he has taken out personal notice to the second respondent and though the notice has been served on the second respondent, she did not choose to come on record.

4. On the contrary, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that though an omnibus accusation has been made against all the accused, truth or otherwise of the same has to be decided during the course of trial.

5. Perused the record.

6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact 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 and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 wherein the Apex Court held:

“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 channelized 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 F.I.