ORDER : This criminal petition is by accused in CC.184/2016 on the file of JMFC, Laxmeshwar. The said proceedings is initiated at the instance of respondent herein. He is none other than the husband of first petitioner/Meenakshi and Meenakshi is sister of accused 3 and 4. Accused No.2 is the husband of accused No.4 and brother-in-law of accused No.1. The complaint in CC.184/2016 is registered pursuant to a private complaint filed in PC.32/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 186, 379, 380, 406, 403, 420, 424, 426, 448, 451, 447, 454, 491, 506, 511 of IPC. 2. The records would disclose that the complainant, who is respondent herein is a teacher in a Government Primary School at Dambala, Mundargi Taluk, Gadag District. Admittedly, the relationship between respondent/complainant and his wife/Meenakshi-first petitioner is not cordial. The records would disclose that their marriage was performed on 15.12.1991 at Belagavi. In the wedlock between complainant and first petitioner there are two issues; one is a male child by name Pradeep, aged about 22 years and the other is daughter, by name Soumya, aged about 20 years. It is seen that though the complainant and first petitioner are husband and wife, they were not residing together continuously from the date of marriage till filing of the complaint in PC.32/2012. 3. Initially, when the respondent was working in Khanapur as a teacher, they were residing together and thereafter, he was transferred to Shirahatti, there also complainant and first petitioner were residing in the matrimonial house. Thereafter, when the matrimonial house was shifted to Laxmeshwar, he was not residing in Laxmeshwar, inasmuch as his place of working was at Chavadala initially and thereafter, it is shifted to Dambala. 4. The records would disclose that, first petitioner was residing in a rented house at Laxmeshwar along with her children. That the complainant would occasionally visit the matrimonial house and he was not residing there permanently. When matter stood thus, first petitioner vacated the matrimonial house set up at Laxmeshwar and shifted the same to Belagavi, closer to the place where her parents, brother and sister are residing. The shifting of residence is said to be for the reason that complainant was not taking care of his wife and children; he was not visiting the matrimonial house in regular intervals and was not providing maintenance for them. The shifting of residence is said to be for the reason that complainant was not taking care of his wife and children; he was not visiting the matrimonial house in regular intervals and was not providing maintenance for them. Therefore, with the assistance of brother, sister and brother-in-law, first petitioner shifted her residence from Laxmeshwar to Belagavi on 4.4.2012. 5. The act of shifting residence from Laxmeshwar to Belagavi is said to have caused heartburn to the complainant, which has resulted in filing a private complaint stating that his wife with the assistance of his brother, sister and brother-in-law stolen all the materials that were stored by him in the matrimonial house and while doing so, they have also stolen cash of Rs.2,00,000/- kept in the said house. The said private complaint is in PC.32/2012 on the file of JMFC, Laxmeshwar, where he has also sworn to a statement, which is recorded. Thereafter, the court below is said to have taken cognizance of the offences stated in complaint punishable under Sections 109, 186, 339, 380 and 504 r/w 34 of IPC and said complaint is against accused 1 to 4/petitioners 1 to 4 herein. Accused 1 to 4 in PC.32/2012, which is subsequently registered in CC.184/2016 have come up in this petition seeking quashing of said criminal proceedings. 6. When this matter was heard for admission, this Court had an occasion to go through the complaint filed in PC.32/2012. On going through the contents thereof, it is noticed that the complainant has stated in said complaint that he is working as a teacher in a Government Primary School; he does not have any income other than the salary income; he had set up matrimonial house for the benefit of himself, his wife and children at Laxmeshwar and said house was under the care and custody of his wife where she was staying along with her children. According to him, on 4.4.2012 she had run away from the matrimonial house taking away all the household articles and also cash that was kept in the house. 7. However, this Court felt that the contents of complaint may not be true. According to him, on 4.4.2012 she had run away from the matrimonial house taking away all the household articles and also cash that was kept in the house. 7. However, this Court felt that the contents of complaint may not be true. Hence, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant was called upon to demonstrate what was the source of income for respondent to save Rs.2,00,000/- and to keep the same in the house where his wife and children are residing, more particularly when the relationship between himself and his wife is totally strained; also in the background that there are several complaints and counter complaints being filed by the wife and husband against each other and when they are at logger heads. Accordingly, an order was passed on 30.11.2016 calling upon the respondent herein to produce particulars of his income; also the source of Rs.2,00,000/- which he had saved and kept in cash in the matrimonial house set up at Laxmeshwar. 8. In pursuance to order dated 30.11.2016 learned counsel for respondent/complainant produced certain documents on 6.1.2017 in the form of an affidavit of respondent. However, not being satisfied with the reasons stated in said affidavit, this Court passed further order on 6.1.2017 seeking clarification, for which this day an attempt is made by the counsel for respondent to demonstrate through passbook of SB a/c bearing No.695-101-18831 with Canara Bank, Bellatti. On going through the same it is seen that an attempt is made to show that loan was borrowed by him on 14.5.2010 to the tune of Rs.74,603/-, other loan on 18.5.2010 in a sum of Rs.34,888/- and one more loan on 15.3.2011 in a sum of Rs.1,02,400/-, which according to him was withdrawn and was kept in the matrimonial house. 9. Admittedly, aforesaid three amounts are loan amounts for which he is required to pay interest. Infact, he does not say for what purpose said loans were taken and there is no reference as to when said amounts were withdrawn by him by cash and kept in the matrimonial house. Further, when probing questions were put, the learned counsel for respondent was not in a position to satisfactorily answer the same despite the presence of his client next to him giving instructions as to the dates of withdrawal. Further, when probing questions were put, the learned counsel for respondent was not in a position to satisfactorily answer the same despite the presence of his client next to him giving instructions as to the dates of withdrawal. This would clearly indicate that the averments made in the private complaint in PC.32/2012 as well as in affidavit are nothing but an attempt to mislead the Court of JMFC, Laxmeshwar in furnishing false and motivated statements with a sole intention of initiating false complaint against his wife, her brother, sister and brother-in-law for having stood by her in her times of difficult and in taking her away from the clutches of complainant, who appears to have subjected her to harassment in the matrimonial house at Laxmeshwar. Such conduct on the part of complainant in misleading the court of JMFC, Laxmeshwar in taking cognizance for an offence which has not taken place, amounts to perjury and it is an offence which cannot go unpunished. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that the entire proceedings in CC.184/2016 is built on false and frivolous statements and falsified records with a sole intention of harassing his wife, her brother, sister and brother-in-law. Therefore, said proceedings are required to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in CC.184/2016, on the file of Court of JMFC, Laxmeshwar, are quashed. While doing so, it is necessary that this Court is required to direct the Court of JMFC, Laxmeshwar to initiate proceedings against the respondent/complainant for perjury in initiating a false and frivolous proceeding against his wife and her family members accusing them of stealing the household articles and cash from the matrimonial house of himself and petitioner No.1. However, such a direction would result in the criminal prosecution being launched against the respondent-complainant, which may also lead to a situation where he may loose his job, which is not the intention of this Court. However, at the same time, he should not be allowed to go scot-free. Hence, as and by way of punishment for filing frivolous complaint, this Court would direct the respondent-complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- before this Court within six weeks from today. However, at the same time, he should not be allowed to go scot-free. Hence, as and by way of punishment for filing frivolous complaint, this Court would direct the respondent-complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- before this Court within six weeks from today. Out of which, Rs.10,000/- shall be the cost to be appropriated to the registry and another Rs.10,000/- to be paid to petitioner No.1-wife to meet the litigation expenses incurred while protecting herself from the false complaint launched in C.C.No.184/2016. Hence, this further order is passed in this petition.