ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in crime No.7/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Sri. V.B. siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Asha M.P., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Before embarking upon the consideration of the issue on its merit, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the parties to the lis. Respondent No.2 is the complainant - wife of one Vinay R.S., the husband, who is not before the Court. Petitioner No.1 is accused No.3 - the sister-in-law of respondent No.2 - complainant and Petitioner No.2 is the aunt of the husband - accused No.1. Accused No.1 and respondent No.2 get married on 22.02.2021. The relationship between accused No.1 - the husband and the complainant appears to have floundered, which lead the complainant to register a crime before the jurisdictional Police. A statement of the complainant is recorded on 10.08.2021 and a non cognizable report is made, on the said complaint. The complainant then gets back to the matrimonial house.

4. Later, on 20.01.2022, another impugned complaint comes to be registered alleging offences that would become punishable under Section 498A or 506 and 34 of the IPC. The compliant is against the husband, mother-in-law and the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.3 and 4, sisters-in-law of complainant. The police seek to conduct investigation against the petitioners and others in the aforesaid crime. It is at that juncture, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in the subject petition and an interim order of stay of further proceedings against the petitioners is granted. The interim order so granted on 19.09.2022 continues to be in subsisting even as on date.

5. Sri. V.B. Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are no way connected to the family of the complainant or her husband. The allegations are all against the petitioner and mother-in-law. It is therefore, he would submit that the complaint does not even make out prima facie offence against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.3 and 4 and learned counsel would further submit that accused No.3 is a student and has nothing to do with the allegation of harassment between the husband, mother-in-law or the complainant - wife.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent - complainant would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that specific allegations are made against all the accused for demand of dowry and therefore, the proceedings qua the petitioners should not be terminated, but investigation should be permitted to be continued. It is for the petitioners to come out clean in the investigation or in the trial, as the case would be.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the parties are as afore-quoted. The same is not in dispute. The couple get married on 22.02.2021.

The relationship appears to have turned sour immediately, thereafter and respondent No.2 seeks to register a complaint before the jurisdictional Police on 10.08.2021, it is then the couple were summoned to the police station and a non cognizable report was made, after taking the statement. The complainant then moves back to the matrimonial house. After moving out and staying for about 04 months, again the complainant seeks to register a crime on 20.01.2022. Since the entire issue now springs from the complaint, it is germane to notice the complaint insofar as the allegations are concerned.

"There was no physical connect between us from past 7 months and yesterday early in the mo