ORDER :

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.78 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, against the petitioner/A4.

2. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner herein/A4 and others for the offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The de facto complainant got married to A1 of Kamati Street, Krishna Mandir, China Bazaar, Nellore on 08.06.2017 in the presence of elders as per their customs and religion at Nulakapet, Tadepalli. It is alleged that at the time of marriage on the demand of A1 to A4, parents of the de facto complainant gave Rs.2.00 Lakhs, one gold ring, wrist watch and also spent Rs.7.00 lakhs and gave Rs.50,000/- for household goods. The de facto complainant joined marital life at her in-laws house at Nellore. A1 is working as Computer Operator at Narayana Main Branch. It is alleged that A2 to A4 instigated A1 and by virtue of instigation made by A2 to A4, A1 started harassing the de facto complainant both physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity. A1 was harassing the de facto complainant as she did not beget children and forced to get away in order to marry another woman, so that he would get more dowry. Eventually, the accused necked the de facto complainant out of their house. Thereafter, the de facto complainant filed a report in Disha Police Station. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.6 of 2021 of Disha Woman Police Station has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet and the same has been numbered as CC No.78 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, Guntur district.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A4 submits that except omnibus allegations that were made against the petitioner/A4, there is no other material to connect the petitioner/A4 to the alleged crime.

4. He also submitted that a notice has been taken out to the address of the de facto complainant.

5. Despite the notice, no one represented on behalf of the de facto complainant.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has taken the Court to the statement given by the de facto complainant. Even as per the said statement, according to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the allegation is that at the instigation of A2 to A4, A1 harassed the de facto complainant both physically and mentally.

7. Perused the record.

8. 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 ors., 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