ORDER :

K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioners/A.2 and A.3, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.772 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anaparthi, East Godavari District relating to Crime No.165 of 2021 of Biccavole Police Station, registered against the Petitioners/A.2 and A.3 and other accused, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'IPC') and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for brevity 'DP Act').

2. The allegations against the petitioners/accused, as set out in the charge sheet, are that 2^nd respondent-defacto complainant, a resident of Voolapalli Village, married A-1, Petta Bala Veera Venkata Ramana, on 17.01.2019, after fulfillment of dowry demands and customary gifts. A-1, a Software Engineer working in South Africa, allegedly subjected her to harassment for additional dowry, with the support of A-2 (his mother) and A-3 (his relative). It is further alleged that A-1 pressurized her to give consent for divorce for the purpose of contracting another marriage for higher dowry and ultimately drove her out of the matrimonial home, forcing her to return to her parental house. As reconciliation efforts failed, she lodged the police report. Based on the said report, a case in Crime No. 165/2021 was registered for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The investigating officer examined the complainant and witnesses, inspected the scene of offence, and recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, a prima facie case was found against A-1 to A-3, and a charge sheet was filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/A.2 and A.3 submits that, even if the entire allegations are taken to be true, no prima facie case for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act is made out against the petitioners herein. He further submitted that, apart from a vague and omnibus allegation that the petitioners supported A.1 in harassing the de facto complainant, there are no specific allegations against them. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are the mother and sister of A.1, and that all the allegations in the charge sheet are primarily attributed to A.1. He further submits that, pursuant to the directions of this Court, notice has been issued to Respondent No.2; however, although the notice has been duly served, there has been no appearance on behalf of Respondent No.2.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1–State, submits that there is a specific allegation against the petitioners/accused that they supported A.1 in harassing the de facto complainant for additional dowry. According to him, the said allegation is sufficient to require the petitioners to face trial, as truth or otherwise of the said accusation, has to be determined during the course of trial, and at this stage, interference by this Court at the threshold is not warranted.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/A.2 and A.3 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1-State. Perused the material available on 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