IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for specific allegations in dowry harassment cases to avoid misuse of legal provisions against relatives of the husband.

ORDER :

1. The present Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the docket order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1586/2019 in S.R. No. 4587/2019 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvuru, W.G. District to direct the Court below to take cognizance against A2 to A5.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that the petitioner filed a complaint vide Crl. M.P. No. 1568 of 2019 in Sr. No. 4587 of 2019 under Section 190(1) (b) of Cr.P.C. on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvuru, W.G. District alleging that she gave a complaint against her husband and in-laws to the Station House Officer, Tallapudi Police Station, which was registered as a case in Cr. No. 57/2018 under Section 498(a) of I.P.C. Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act against the accused and the Police filed charge sheet against her husband/A1 only, by deleting the Accused No. 2 to 5 without proper investigation. Therefore, requested the Court below to proceed according to law in the interest of justice. However, the Court below vide orders dated 05.08.2019 taken cognizance against A2 alone and dismissed the petition in so far as the other respondents/ accused concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court to quash the said docket order dated 05.08.2019 and requested to take cognizance against A3 to A5.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State as well as Mr. K.V. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 5.

4. Perused the material on record.

5. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

6. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajanlal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At Paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows:

“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 uncont