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.

3

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

1^st

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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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

4

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 1^st 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 1^st 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

5

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 8B9 report in the said crime case.

5. On 04-12-2007 the 1^st 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

6

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 or