ORDER : In these petitions, the petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.131/2007, pending on the file of learned IV Addl.Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysuru (for brevity `Court below’). 2. It is the summary of the case of the petitioners herein that on 26.6.2005, the 1st petitioner’s marriage was solemnized with the 2nd respondent in Mysuru City. Nearly for one year, they led marital life. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent i.e., wife, started demanding to make a separate house in and around Mysuru City or to send the parents of the 1st petitioner to the village. When the 1st petitioner (husband) rejected her demands, the 2nd respondent (wife) with a mala fide intention, drunk the alleged cockroach medicine to simply threaten the petitioners. She also lodged a false police complaint against the petitioners alleging that petitioners had forcibly made her to drink the medicine mixing it in the juice. As such, a false complaint has been filed by the 2nd respondent in the 1st respondent Police Station on 23.10.2006, which came to be registered against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After completion of the investigation, the 1st respondent police have filed the charge sheet. As such, the case is now number in C.C.No.131/2007 and is pending in the Court below. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners, as well as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd respondent wife had filed a false case only to harass the petitioners/accused. It is further the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the very same complainant/wife had also filed a petition in C.Misc.No.217/2009, in the Family Court at Mysuru, under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The said matter came to be dismissed as settled between the parties out of Court on 31.8.2013. As such, when the parties have settled the matter, the present criminal case in the Court below would not survive. It is also his submission that the complainant/wife has underwent second marriage with another person about five years back and also has got a child. 4. As such, when the parties have settled the matter, the present criminal case in the Court below would not survive. It is also his submission that the complainant/wife has underwent second marriage with another person about five years back and also has got a child. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent in his argument submitted that in the absence of appearance of 2nd respondent-complainant, it cannot be inferred that criminal case pending in the Court below would end in acquittal. In that situation, the law would take its own course. 5. On a perusal of the material on record, it appears that on 23.10.2006 at 23.00 hours, the Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate of Mysuru Taluk, had recorded a dying declaration of one Smt.Prema (respondent No.2 herein) in the K.R.Hospital at Mysuru. In the said dying declaration, it is shown that the injured/victim (respondent No.2) is shown to have stated that at about one year four months back, she had married to petitioner No.1 herein and after leading a happy marital life for one month, her husband, father and mother-in-law joined together, were subjecting her to cruelty. They were demanding for dowry and were subjecting her to both mental and physical cruelty. They did not even yield to the advise of the elders. That being the case, on 22.10.2006, in the evening at about 8.00 p.m., her husband and in-laws mixed the cockroach medicine in a juice and forcibly made her to drink it. The said dying declaration recorded by the Taluka Executive Magistrate was registered in the 1st respondent Police Station in their station Crime No.101/2006 against the present petitioners herein arraying them as accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After conducting the investigation, the police are said to have filed a charge sheet in the case. The certified copy of the order sheet of the Court below which is produced as Annexure-D, dated 9.3.2007 shows that the complainant police have filed charge sheet and enclosures against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is this criminal case the petitioners have sought to quash now. 6. It is this criminal case the petitioners have sought to quash now. 6. Annexure-E produced along with the petition goes to show that the present respondent No.2 had instituted a criminal petition under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the 1st petitioner herein (her husband), seeking a monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/-per month. The certified copy of the order sheet in the said proceeding which is at Annexure-G go to show that the husband is stated to have paid a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-to the wife as permanent alimony and the matter came to be dismissed as settled out of the Court. It is in this background, the learned counsel for the petitioners argues that since the parties have settled their matter, continuation of the criminal case would serve no purpose. 7. The scope of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is limited. The final order passed in the said petition on 31.8.2013 only shows that the parties have settled the matter out of Court at the intervention of elders, as such, the petition stood dismissed, which means, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure alone has stood dismissed. On the other hand, the pending criminal case being a separate case arising out of a separate cause of action where the interest of the State is involved, involves a serious offence with regard to cruelty punishable under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Code and more importantly, a heinous offence of attempt to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. The very institution of criminal case is shown to be upon an alleged dying declaration of none else than the 2nd respondent/complainant (wife) herself. It is in that situation, merely because the wife is said to have settled the matter of maintenance, by that itself, an inference cannot be drawn to the effect that she has lost her interest in prosecuting the criminal case and that the continuation of the said criminal case would be a futile exercise. 8. With regard to second submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2/-wife has also married five years back and is residing with her second husband and also got a child is concerned, there are no material placed in that regard before this Court. 8. With regard to second submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2/-wife has also married five years back and is residing with her second husband and also got a child is concerned, there are no material placed in that regard before this Court. Admittedly, the marriage between the present petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 has not come to an end in a process known to law. Admittedly, there is no dissolution of marriage that has been ordered by any competent Court of law. As such, in the absence of either any judicial order dissolving the marriage between the present petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 or in the absence of any other material to show that she has married some other person and has lost her interest in prosecuting the present case, it cannot be inferred that she has married to some other person and is not interested in continuing the criminal case. Therefore, the said argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the continuation of the criminal case would be a futile exercise is once again not acceptable. 9. In addition to the above, it is also to be noticed that there is no appearance of 2nd respondent in this case either by herself or through her counsel. Even though the notice pertaining to this petition is shown to have been served upon her, she has remained absent. In her absence and without hearing her, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that she being a complainant herself and other charge sheet witnesses would not support the case of the prosecution in the criminal case and that the criminal case would be a futile exercise. Had 2nd respondent being present before this Court and made her submissions, then the matter would have been considered while appreciating the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since there is no representation from the 2nd respondent’s side and in the light of the circumstances analysed above, it cannot be inferred that the continuation of the criminal case would be a futile exercise or that there are no materials to proceed further based upon the charge sheet filed against the petitioners. 10. As such, finding no merit in the petitions, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. 11. 10. As such, finding no merit in the petitions, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. 11. In view of the fact that the criminal case pending in the Court below is an old case, the disposal of the said case in accordance with law at the earliest by the Court below is appreciated.