JUDGMENT - N. ARUMUGHAM, J.:---Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Maniyar for and on behalf the petitioners and Mrs. Usha Kejariwal learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. None for the 1st respondent, with no representation at all. 2. This Application was filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the proceedings initiated in Criminal Case No. 63/s (sic 63/5) of 1991, lodged by the first respondent. It was taken cognizance of by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, for the alleged offences under sections 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and upon doing so, the process has been issued to the petitioner's herein. 3. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and the rest of the petitioner's are his close relatives like father, brother and mother. It appears from the case record that on receipt of the process issued by the learned trial Magistrate, the petitioner's, instead of appearing before the learned trial Magistrate, have preferred this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief claimed above, on the ground that, so far as the offences under sections 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, there was no truth in the allegations contained in the complaint. The same are merely the traversity of the truth, and that regarding the alleged offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act, the relations between the wife, the 1st respondent, and the husband, the first petitioner, have been terminated by granting a decree of divorce by a foreign Court under the relevant law of that country, and that, therefore, neither the 1st petitioner nor any of his relatives can be proceeded against by the 1st respondent, either in the criminal or civil proceedings, whatever it may be. 4. Another contention raised by Mr. Maniyar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is pertaining to the maintainability of the complaint itself. 4. Another contention raised by Mr. Maniyar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is pertaining to the maintainability of the complaint itself. He contended that to proceed against the petitioners under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the mandatory sine quo non has not been complied with, namely, obtaining of consent from the competent authority to prosecute, and so on, and that taking cumulative effect of the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent, emerging into Criminal Case No. 63/5 of 1991, the process issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, on behalf of the 1st respondent, is liable to the quashed. 5. Mrs. Usha Kejariwal, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 2nd respondent State, has nothing to do with the instant case, or to say anything either for or against the petitioners or the 1st respondent. 6. In the above context, I have carefully gone into the various allegations made in the complaint alleged by the 1st respondent, namely the wife of the 1st petitioner. Their marriage was admittedly solemnized on 26th July, 1991 in India as per the religious custom and subsequentially in order to eke out their livelihood, the couple had been to Bahrain. However, it appears that due to some family bickerings, as pointed out by Mr. Maniyar, proceedings before the Court at Bahrain had been initiated and a decree of divorce has been obtained by the 1st petitioner, the husband; thus severing the relationship of husband and wife between the 1st respondent and the 1st petitioner. 7. It is significant to note that the present complaint has been lodged in the year 1992 for and on behalf of the 1st respondent, the wife, against the petitioners for the offences under sections 498-A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Relying upon the solemn statementis in the complaint, it appears that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint and issued the process to all the petitioners who are the respondents therein. 8. As pointed out by Mr. Maniyar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners have been armed and equipped with good defence to contest the Criminal Case bearing No. 63/5 of 1991, by raising the question of maintainability of the complaint itself and the non-maintainability of the relevant charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act. 8. As pointed out by Mr. Maniyar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners have been armed and equipped with good defence to contest the Criminal Case bearing No. 63/5 of 1991, by raising the question of maintainability of the complaint itself and the non-maintainability of the relevant charges under the Dowry Prohibition Act. While doing so, it is also open to the petitioners to file and prove the foreign Court's decree of divorce. That apart, the complainant, namely the 1st respondent has to necessarily establish her allegations against the petitioners to project a case against the petitioners. In this context, I am of the firm view that when the petitioners had received the process from the Court of law, they had to appear before the trial Court, namely, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, and raise all the objections and defences, if any, as pointed above, and upon doing so, the learned trial Magistrate has to give an opportunity to both the sides and adjudicate upon the same in accordance with law with regard to the maintainability of the very complaint itself before framing the charge. 9. By passing the said procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code, petitioners are seeking indulgence of this Court to quash the proceedings above-referred under the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as if there is no other remedy available to the petitioners herein. In my considered view, it is not a healthy judicial trend at all, and the procedure has to be followed, and for the said reasons, I am not inclined to accept the several contentions made by Mr. Maniyar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners are at liberty to raise their defences with regard to the maintainability of the very complaint itself. 10. In the result, the application fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. In the context of the directions given above, rule granted herein is discharged, and interim order, if any, is hereby vacated. Certified copy expedited. Parties to act on an ordinary copy duly authenticated by the Associate/Sheristedar of this Court, pending receipt of certified copies. Application dismissed. -----