ORDER

1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.8663 of 2009, in particular, the order dated 31-03-2015 by which, cognizance is taken by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore and the order dated 22-03-2018 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.289 of 2015 dismissing the application of the petitioners seeking discharge from C.C.No.8663 of 2009, for offences punishable under Section 406 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri S.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Smt. Shailja Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for Sri Pradeep Nayak, learned counsel for respondent.

3. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:-

The respondent is the complainant. The 1st petitioner/accused No.1 was the husband of the respondent. Petitioners 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. Marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 03-12-1998. It is the case of the complainant that prior to the said date of marriage certain talks between the parents of the complainant and the 1st petitioner resulted in exchange of Rs.4/- lakhs at one point in time and Rs.5/-lakhs later, which was on 21-09-1998 and 11-10-1998. The relationship between the 1st petitioner and the respondent got strained and in the month of March 2001 it appears that the respondent was forced to leave her matrimonial house. On 05.10.2001 the respondent executes an affidavit for having received Rs.3/- lakhs as full and final settlement for a divorce on consent. On 10-10-2001 the amount was also paid to the respondent. A petition for divorce was filed under Section 13(1) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This came to be dismissed on 10-04-2003 on the score that the respondent who was a resident of Bangalore could not appear in the mutual consent divorce proceedings before the Family Court at Mumbai and the counsel also had not appeared before the Court after which, a complaint was filed by the 1st petitioner against the respondent before the learned Magistrate with reference to a transaction by way of a cheque and it getting dishonoured proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. On 05-11-2005 the respondent communicates that she would begin to cohabitate with the 1st petitioner. Before this communication, the respondent had initiated proceedings against petitioners alleging harassment for demand of dowry for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The same was registered as Crime No.373 of 2003. On co-habitation communication, the respondent also assured that she would withdraw the complaint in Crime No.373 of 2003. In the meanwhile, the Police after investigation filed a 'B' report in the said crime case.

5. On 04-12-2007 the 1st petitioner files a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty against the wife which came to be dismissed. On 17-02-2009 the respondent raises a demand that Stridhana of Rs.9/- lakhs which was paid had to be returned along with interest at 9% p.a. beginning from 11-10-1998. When the petitioners failed to pay the said amount, the respondent registers a private complaint in P.C.R.6351 of 2009 before the learned Magistrate at Bangalore for offences punishable under Section 406 of the IPC alleging criminal breach of trust in not returning Rs.9/- lakhs which according to the complainant was the Stridhana that the petitioners had received in the year 1998. This was challenged before this Court by the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.2824 of 2009 seeking quashing of proceedings in P.C.R.6351 of 2009 which by then had become a Criminal case on the Police filing a charge sheet. Noticing the said fact, this Court dismissed the criminal petition by its order dated 13-08-2009.

6. Certain other proceedings that were pending between the parties were one which was before the High Court of Bombay against an order passed by the Family Court at