The main legal point established is the need to balance law enforcement power and protection of citizens from unjust criminal proceedings, and the requirement to establish the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.

JUDGMENT

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J. - The instant petition is filed under Sec. 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos., 5 and 6 in Cr.No.24 of 2020 of Ongole Women Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State and defacto-complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that so far the Petitioners are concerned, they are the outside members, and are not the relatives of the husband to maintain a case under Sec. 498-A of IPC. He would also submit that there are absolutely no allegations against them to attract the offence under Ss. 323 and 506 of IPC.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that absolutely there are no grounds to quash the case against the petitioners, the contents of the written report presented by the defacto complainant attracts the offences against the petitioners and prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. The point for determination that arises in this case is as follows; Whether the case against the Petitioners is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

6. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. SambhajiraoChandrojiraoAngre, (1988) 1SCC 692. held as follows;

"The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

(emphasis supplied)

7. In Mohammad Wajid &Anr. v. State of U.P. and others, 2023 (1) INSC 683. the Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the position laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC. made a comprehensive analysis on the application of the Sec. . The Apex Court stressed on the necessity to arrive at a balance between the law enforcement power of the State and the protection of citizens from unjust criminal proceedings. It was observed that the right not to be disturbed without sufficient grounds is one of the mandates under Art 21 of the Constitution of India. In relation to quashing of F.I.R. and the material that is to be looked into, it was held in the following terms;

"34. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Sec. 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