ORDER

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [in short ‘Cr.P.C’] has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.179 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [in short ‘I.P.C.’], and Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961.

2. The allegations mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows: (a) The marriage of Respondent No.2 with Accused No.1 was performed on 17.10.2010 as per Hindu rites and caste customs at Vijayawada. During wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters.

(b) After giving birth to female children, Accused No.1 in support of Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 used to harass Respondent No.2 both physically and mentally stating that she had given birth to female children and they want to perform another marriage to Accused No.1. They also used to beat her by demanding additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs.

(c) Accused No.1 used to have illicit relationship with other women and used to bring them to the house and used to harass her mentally by neglecting her and her children.

(d) As such, Respondent No.2 lodged complaint against all the Accused which was registered as a case in Crime No.136 of 2018 for the alleged offence and after completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet in short ‘D.P.Act’

which was numbered as C.C.No.179 of 2020 for the said offence. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them.

3. Heard Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioners, and Ms.D. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/ Respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 would submit that the Petitioners herein are the mother, father, sister and brother-in-law respectively of Accused No.1. Learned counsel would submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners and they are falsely implicated in the present case based on bald and omnibus allegations. It is submitted that there are no specific overt acts attributed against the Petitioners and they have nothing to do with the alleged offence. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner never resided with the family of Respondent No.2 and the entire investigation is nothing but a stage management. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations made against the Petitioners and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided during trial and at this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.179 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet?

Determination by the Court

7. 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, whic