Proceedings involving vague and omnibus allegations against relatives of a husband in matrimonial disputes, which fail to establish a prima facie case of cruelty or specific acts of harassment, are liable to be quashed to prevent the abuse of judicial process.

ORDER :

K SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

Since the issue involved in both the Criminal Petitions is common and arise out of same CC No.276 of 2021, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Criminal Petition No.1067 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/A7 and Criminal Petition No.1073 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners/A4 and A5 respectively to quash the proceedings in CC No.276 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, Kadapa district.

3. A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners herein/A4, A5 and A7 and others for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is alleged that the marriage between 2^nd respondent herein/de facto complainant and A1 was performed on 27.12.2019 and at the time of marriage the parents of the de facto complainant gave cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, 40 Tulas of Gold and home needs worth of Rs.3,00,000/- towards dowry. It is alleged that A1 showed fake papers that he got Talak and married the de facto complainant. Subsequent to marriage, the accused are alleged to have harassed the de facto complainant both mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-. Based on the complaint of the de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.363 of 2020 of kadapa II Town Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Sections

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet and the same was taken on file as CC No.276 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, Kadapa district.

4. Though a notice was served on 2^nd respondent, none appeared on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A4, A5 and A7 submits that the petitioners/A4, A5 and A7 are no way connected with the family affairs between the de facto complainant and A1. He submits that the de facto complainant foisted the above case against the petitioners herein with a view to harass them. He further submits that except making omnibus allegations, no specific accusations have been made against the petitioners/A4, A5 and A7 and all the allegations are directed as against A1, A3 and A6 and subsequent to filing of FIR, A3 died. He further submitted that except making a vague and bald allegation that A1 has got illicit intimacy with A7, there is no material to show that A1 has got illegal affair with A7.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners/A4, A5 and A7 with regard to the allegation of A1 having illegal intimacy with A7 and submitted that except a vague and bald allegation in the statement of the de facto complainant, there is no material to that effect.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A4, A5 and A7 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 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