ORDER : 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. Heard learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The facts leading to this petition are on the basis of the complaint dated 25.03.2008 filed by Puja Yadav, Frazer Town police have registered a case in Crime No.103/2008. After investigation, the Charge sheet was filed which was numbered as C.C. No.24252/2009. The allegations are that the complainant married the petitioner on 12.11.2005. At the time of marriage, the petitioner demanded huge dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- which was to be given at betrothal ceremony and Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of marriage. In addition to that, 400 gms. of gold jewellery, pearly jewellery set, diamond necklace, 20 sets of dress, utensils, furniture and other luxury & latest electronic items were accepted by the petitioner. Soon after the marriage, her mother-in-law started enquiring about the bank account of the complainant, shares in her parents property and forced her to bring money from her parents house on the pretext of purchasing a Villa at Outer Ring Road. The complainant gave all her savings to her husband – Sachin. Thereafter, from November 2005 to August 2006, the complainant stayed with her husband in San Francisco, California. The petitioner No.1 induced to the complainant to go back to her parents house and demand share in her parents property or bring money equivalent to the share of the property. Later it was learnt that her mother-in-law had cheated the complainant by collecting money from her under the guise of purchasing a Villa. She had also hatched a conspiracy to drive the complainant out of California. On 16.12.2006, she came back to India and tried to contact her father-in-law, but she was scolded in a filthy language. Thereafter, a panchayath was held to settle the dispute amicably. All the family members of her husband collectively caused mental agony and have threatened the complainant with dire consequences that if she does not get money, they will ruin her entire family. Even her husband did not respond to the complainant’s call, thereby, the accused namely the husband and his family members have caused harassment for getting dowry and have also threatened to ruin her life. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, FIR was registered and charge sheet was filed. 3. Even her husband did not respond to the complainant’s call, thereby, the accused namely the husband and his family members have caused harassment for getting dowry and have also threatened to ruin her life. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, FIR was registered and charge sheet was filed. 3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the allegations made in the complaint and charge-sheet filed on the basis of the frivolous complaint are bad in law. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 was performed with the complainant on 12.11.2005. The petitioner being an affluent person had given financial help and transferred the money to the complainant’s account since January 2005 till June 2006. Statement of accounts to ICICI Bank at Annexure-E confirms the payment was made by the petitioner No.1 towards marriage expenses and also to support the complainant. Thus, the allegations made regarding dowry harassment are baseless and concocted. Even other allegations made regarding threat calls by the petitioners are false. In view of the observation made in order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.10028/2013 (FC) and the findings given therein, the allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet filed on the basis of the said complaint are not tenable. The same are liable to be quashed. 4. The counsel for the respondent had sought for an adjournment. But the counsel for the petitioner objected for granting time. During the course of arguments the counsel for the respondent appeared and submitted that his arguments may be taken up after an hour. Hence the case was called out again. But there was no representation by the counsel. 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner No.1 had married the complainant on 12.11.2005. The main allegations of the complainant – respondent No.2 are that the petitioner No.1 namely, her husband and his family members, petitioner Nos.2 to 7 have caused harassment for getting more dowry and have also committed other wrongful acts such as causing threat. As could be seen from the records the petitioner has produced the statement of accounts of ICICI Bank which is at Annexure ‘E’. The entries made in the said statement of account disclose that the petitioner No.1 was paying the amount to complainant Pooja Yadav who was his wife. Since January, 2005 the amount sent by the petitioner was withdrawn by the complainant. The entries made in the said statement of account disclose that the petitioner No.1 was paying the amount to complainant Pooja Yadav who was his wife. Since January, 2005 the amount sent by the petitioner was withdrawn by the complainant. The entries in Annexure ‘A’ disclose that the payment was done through U S dollar currency which was transferred from the bank account of petitioner No.1 to the bank account of the complainant. In page No.48 of Annexure ‘E; the entries dated 08.11.2005 and 16.11.2005 reveals that an amount of Rs.2,11,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- was transferred to the account of Pooja Yadav through cheques. Thus it is evident that the petitioner No.1 has made several payments to the complainant - wife. As such, there was no occasion for the petitioners to demand dowry from the complainant or her parents. 6. It is pertinent to note that there was a matrimonial dispute which was pending before the Family Court in M.C. No.224/2009 on the file of V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, which was filed by the petitioner No.1 against his wife respondent No.2 Pooja Yadav. The said M.C. case was decreed in favour of the petitioner No.1, namely the husband. Being aggrieved by the said order the complainant – respondent No.2 had filed MFA No.10028/2013 (FC), wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has observed as under: “4. The appellant has alleged that respondent and his family members demanded dowry, which was paid. She has admitted in her evidence in clear terms that her father was maintaining family out of the pension amount. She has also admitted that respondent has transferred money to her account prior to marriage and even thereafter at the request of the appellant that her father had no money to perform marriage. The appellant could not produce any materials for having kept money in the Bank for paying dowry, even she could not substantiate the demand and payment of Rs. 5 lakhs for purchase of a Villa. In addition to that she has filed false dowry harassment case on 26.03.2008 against the husband and his family members. The husband has deposed that wife was not leading a happy married life when she was staying with him at California though he was providing all amenities. The wife admitted her stay in California, husband taking her to two -three places during holidays and leave period. The husband has deposed that wife was not leading a happy married life when she was staying with him at California though he was providing all amenities. The wife admitted her stay in California, husband taking her to two -three places during holidays and leave period. The wife admitted that after December-2006, she never stayed in the house of husband. The evidence of wife proved that she has voluntarily deserted the husband without any reasonable cause thereby, deprived him cohabitation. If amounted to cruelty to husband, Ex- P12, emails sent by the wife proved that without getting decree of divorce, she married to one Manpreeth. When she had visited USA on company work in September-October 2007, she did not care to visit or talked with the husband. 5. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Court below has properly appreciated the materials on record and has come to correct conclusions that wife has deserted the husband and caused cruelty and rightly dissolved the marriage.” 7. Based on the evidence given by the complainant wife Smt. Pooja Yadav in matrimonial case the Division Bench has come to the conclusion that the complainant never stayed in the house of the husband since 2006 and she had voluntarily deserted the husband without any reasonable cause, thereby she had deprived her husband of cohabitation which amounted to cruelty to husband. The e-mails sent by the wife prove that she had married one person by name Manpreet before getting decree of divorce. The findings in MFA No.10028/2013 are relevant and binding and these findings support the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the allegations made in the complaint dated 25.03.2008 are false and baseless. 8. Another ground urged by the counsel for petitioner is that the e-mails sent by complainant Pooja Yadav to petitioner No.1 Sachin Yadav during the period from 11.01.2007 to 31.10.2007 which are at Annexure ‘F’ (at page Nos.49 to 55) confirm the second marriage of complainant with another person by name Manpreet. Thereafter the complaint was filed on 25.03.2008 and the judgment and decree was passed in M.C. No.224/2009 by its order dated 17.08.2013. The documentary evidence placed on record clearly goes to show that the allegations regarding dowry harassment and other wrongful acts were done with vindictive motive to harass the petitioners. 9. Thereafter the complaint was filed on 25.03.2008 and the judgment and decree was passed in M.C. No.224/2009 by its order dated 17.08.2013. The documentary evidence placed on record clearly goes to show that the allegations regarding dowry harassment and other wrongful acts were done with vindictive motive to harass the petitioners. 9. In a decision reported in (2018) 13 SCC 747 in the case of Kartik Chandra Majee alias Kartik Chand Majee & others Vs State of Jharkhand and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “9. … 41. Inherent power given to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is with the purpose and object of advancement of justice. In case solemn process of Court is sought to be abused by a person with some oblique motive, the Court has to thwart the attempt at the very threshold. The Court cannot permit a prosecution to go on if the case falls in one of the categories as illustratively enumerated by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of operation or harassment. When there are materials to indicate that a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, the High Court will not hesitate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceeding under Category 7 as enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 379, para 102): ‘102. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. In another decision reported in (2005) 6 SCC 281 in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “19. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial..…the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin’s weapon. If the cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears. There is no question of the investigating agency and courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that the ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent.” 11. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, the Court can quash the criminal proceedings if it is manifestly attended with malafides and the proceedings maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. The facts of this case clearly comes under category 7, as enumerated in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that there are valid grounds for quashing the charge sheet. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The charge sheet dated 04.03.2009 filed in C.C. No.24252/2009 and the entire proceedings in C.C. No.24252/2009 pending on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 34 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed.