ORDER : The present petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.15354/2013 in the Court of 9th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (henceforth for brevity it is referred to as ‘Court below’). Both these accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. When the matter was posted for evidence, the accused filed a memo in the Court below seeking direction to direct the police to secure the nine items shown in the memo from CW1 and to direct the CW1 to hand over the same to the accused persons. 2. C.C.No.15354/2013 came to be initiated with a complaint filed by father of one Ms.Anusha alleging that the said Anusha was decided to be given in marriage to the petitioner No.1 herein who is the son of 2nd petitioner, in which regard, on 26.11.2012, expending a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, an engagement ceremony was held in a grand manner. According to the complainant, from the bride side already a cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, clothes worth Rs.50,000/-, a watch worth Rs.48,000/-, a golden ring weighing 10 grams and a golden bracelet weighing 30 grams, a golden necklace weighing 26 grams and 750 grams of silver articles are all given. It is the further allegation made in the complaint that a week prior to the date of complaint, petitioner No.2 herein (accused No.2) telephoned to the complainant and stated that his son i.e., accused No.1 (petitioner No.1) is going to get a government job for which there is a necessity of Rs.25,00,000/- in which Rs.10,00,000/- has to be shared by the complainant’s side. The complainant expressed his inability to share any amount in that regard. The accused stated that the proposed bridegroom would get a higher quantum of dowry from other relationship and that the complainant has to necessarily pay the amount demanded by them. The marriage was decided to be held on 27.05.2013 at KEB Community Hall, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. The accused who were not willing to proceed further in the marriage functions, left the marriage hall on the day of marriage alleging that their demand was not met by the bride side. The marriage was decided to be held on 27.05.2013 at KEB Community Hall, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. The accused who were not willing to proceed further in the marriage functions, left the marriage hall on the day of marriage alleging that their demand was not met by the bride side. The said complaint was registered by the police, who after completion of investigation, have filed the charge sheet against the accused including the present petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the contention of present petitioners herein that by filing a memo in the Court below, they have clearly mentioned that the items shown in the memo were all given by them to the girl and since the marriage could not be materialized, those articles have to be directed to be returned to them. The Court below by its considered order on the memo dated 09.03.2018 has rejected the said memo. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his arguments while reiterating the contention taken up in the petition also stated that those articles shown in the memo have been given by accused Nos.1 and 2, as such, they are entitled for its return. It was also made it clear that the present petitioners would not come in the way of continuation of the criminal case in the Court below. However, their only concern is about getting back the valuables which were given to the bride. 5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor-2 who has received notice on behalf of respondent No.1 vehemently submitted that the memo filed by the present petitioners in the Court below itself was not maintainable. It was not even an application with a specific prayer for return of their alleged articles. However, the Court below has considered the said memo on its merit and by passing an order on merit has come to the conclusion that there was no merit in the memo. 6. Admittedly, the case pending against the present petitioners in the Court below is for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The very allegation made against the present petitioners is demanding further dowry. 6. Admittedly, the case pending against the present petitioners in the Court below is for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The very allegation made against the present petitioners is demanding further dowry. The materials placed before this Court at this stage prima facie go to show that it is the complainant who has alleged that all those valuables were given from bride side to accused No.1 at the time of engagement. Since the matter is pending in the Court below, it is for the said Court to decide after considering the evidence and also materials placed before it as to the truthfulness in the allegation made in the complaint. It is only thereafter the Court below can arrive at a conclusion as to the truthfulness in the allegation made in the complaint. 7. According to the petitioners, they had also filed a complaint against Ms.Anusha and her family members. However, due to high handedness of the alleged accused therein, the complaint was not recorded by the police. The said statement is hard to believe for the reason that even according to the present petitioners, they are well educated and if the complaint was not registered, they had various remedies including approaching higher officers and by filing a complaint before the competent Court and place their case before the competent authority/Court for redressal. Without doing any such act, the petitioners have merely filed a memo seeking intervention of the Court below which is about to hold a trial against them and asked it for a direction to direct the police to collect the valuable articles shown in the memo and to deliver it to them. Further, those articles which the petitioners have sought for in their memo is also shown to have been not seized by the police during the investigation and not subjected to property form. 8. Considering all these aspects, the Court below has rightly rejected the memo filed by the accused. I do not find any perversity or error in the said finding given by the Court below on the memo filed by the accused. Thus, I do not find any merit to admit this petition for hearing. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission.