This petition is filed by petitioners 1 to 3 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking to set aside the order dated 15-6-2001 passed in C.C.No. 271 of 2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hiriyur, registering the above case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and to quash the entire proceedings therein.

2. The case of the petitioners in a nutshell is that the petitioner 1 who is none other than the husband of respondent 2 herein, filed a petition before the Family Court at Bangalore, in M.C. No. 1278 of 2000 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of his marriage with respondent 2 by way of divorce. On being notified of filing of such case, the 2nd respondent resisted the petition and filed counter-statement. When the matter reached trial, the parties examined themselves as P.W. 1 and R.W. 1 respectively. The 1st petitioner-husband got marked 19 documents, while the 2nd respondent-wife did not produce any documentary evidence. During the course of cross-examination, she admitted that she was being looked after well by her husband and she was not subjected to any cruelty or ill-treatment. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Family Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the 2nd respondent-wife has filed a complaint of dowry harassment against the petitioners.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed in M.C. No. 1278 of 2000, the 1st petitioner herein filed M.F.A. No. 1476 of 2005 before this Court. This Court, vide judgment dated 27-9-2007, found that the Trial Court was in error in holding that the petitioner-husband had foiled to prove acts of cruelty alleged against the 2nd respondent-wife, and that the latter has filed a false case against him for dowry harassment only to harass him. Therefore, the co-ordinate Bench, noting the fact that the appellant before it (husband) volunteered to deposit Rs. 3,5001- p.m. for his minor daughter towards maintenance apart from Rs. 5,00,000/-deposit towards the marriage expenses of the minor daughter born out of wedlock to the couple, reversed the finding of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal. After disposal of the said M.F.A. in favour of the 1st petitioner-husband, the petitioners have preferred this petition, seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against them at the instance of respondent 2 herein, registered in C.C. No. 271 of 2001 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hiriyur, for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 149, 498-A and 506 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The 1st respondent is represented by learned Government Pleader. The 2nd respondent appeared through her Counsel and resisted the petition, contending that the above petition has been filed with an intention to protract the proceedings before the Trial Court. It is contended that being aggrieved by the order dated 27-9-2007 in M.F.A. No. 1476 of 2005, she has preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No. 21190 of 2007 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has ordered stay of the order impugned before it, but the petitioners have suppressed these facts before this Court, and therefore, seeks dismissal of this criminal petition.

5. I have heard Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B. Balakrishna, learned High Court: Government Pleader and Sri P.H. Virupakshaiah, learned Counsel representing the 2nd respondent, at length.

6. Sri C.V. Nagesh submitted that filing of the complaint by the 2nd respondent before the jurisdictional police and filing of charge-sheet are subsequent to issuance of notice to the 2nd respondent in M.C. No. 1278 of 2000 filed by the 1st petitioner against her and the