JUDGMENT J.M. Khazi, J. - Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 5 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in CC No.1664/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 325, 354, 341, 504, 506 r/w. 149 of IPC. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that concealing the fact of earlier marriage of respondent No.3, the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 was solemnized on 17.04.2019. After about 8-9 months of the marriage respondent No.3 and his family members started harassing and ill-treating her. While staying in her matrimonial home, petitioner No.1 came to know about the earlier marriage of respondent No.3 with one Ashwini Yallappa Balikatti and when she confronted, respondent Nos.2 and 3 abused and ill-treated her. When mediation and conciliation by the elders did not give any result, she left the matrimonial home and filed complaint on 25.01.2021 and it is registered in Crime No.10/2021. In fact on 13.02.2022 a mahazar was drawn at the matrimonial home of petitioner No.1. Misusing the said fact respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint against the petitioners alleging that they assaulted her and a charge is filed against them, which is being challenged in this petition. 3. Respondent No.1 has appeared through High Court Government Pleader. 4. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also appeared through Sri. A.B.Patil Advocate. 5. During the course of the arguments learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet are false, frivolous and not tenable. On 13.02.2021 petitioners along with the police of Women Police Station, Hubli, had gone to the matrimonial home of petitioner No.1 to draw spot mahazar. In fact petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are the panchas for the said mahazar. At that time petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were not present and the lock was opened by one of their friends. Respondent No.3 turned up later on the advice of his counsel and after completing the drawing of the mahazar they returned. As an afterthought a false complaint came to be filed on 16.02.2021. 5.1. In fact after coming to know about the same petitioner No.1 approached the Superintend of Police, Belagavi, on 20.04.2021 and gave representation. In turn the Superintend of Police directed the investigating officer to inquiry and report without two days, but the same is ignored by him. As an afterthought a false complaint came to be filed on 16.02.2021. 5.1. In fact after coming to know about the same petitioner No.1 approached the Superintend of Police, Belagavi, on 20.04.2021 and gave representation. In turn the Superintend of Police directed the investigating officer to inquiry and report without two days, but the same is ignored by him. In the circumstances the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 6. In support of his arguments learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the following decisions: i) Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (2013) 11 SCC 673 (Paramjeet Batra's Case). ii) Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and Another (2019) 11 SCC 706 (Anand Kumar's Case). iii) Babu Venkatesh and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another (2022) 5 SCC 639 (Babu Venkatesh's Case). 7. On the other hand the learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 argued and submitted that the fact of the first marriage of respondent No.2 was known to petitioner No.1. After some times she started harassing and ill-treating respondent Nos.2 and 3 to perform the marriage of her brother Shivananda or else to transfer property in her name or to give her divorce and ultimately she left the matrimonial home on 25.01.2020 and inspite of repeated attempts she did not return to the matrimonial home and has filed a false complaint. He would further submit that on 13.02.2021, after coming to know that petitioners have come to their house, when respondent Nos. 2 and 3 came to the spot, all the petitioners picked up quarrel with them and petitioner No.1 saying that the marriage of her brother is over and now she knows how to get divorce and so saying she assaulted her on left cheek as a result of which respondent No.2 lost two teeth. The other petitioners also assaulted them and in respect of the said incident she has filed complaint on 16.02.2021 and after conducting detailed investigation charge sheet is filed against the petitioners. There is prima-facie material to proceed against the petitioners and prays to reject the petition. 8. In support of their arguments learned counsel representing the respondents relied upon the following decisions: i) Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Kumar and Others (2017) 9 SCC 641 (Parbatbhai Aahir's Case). ii) Ramveer Upadhyay and Another Vs. There is prima-facie material to proceed against the petitioners and prays to reject the petition. 8. In support of their arguments learned counsel representing the respondents relied upon the following decisions: i) Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Kumar and Others (2017) 9 SCC 641 (Parbatbhai Aahir's Case). ii) Ramveer Upadhyay and Another Vs. State of U.P and Another Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2953 of 2022 (Ramveer Upadhyay's Case) 9. Heard the arguments and perused the records. 10. In Parbat Bhai Ahira's case referred to supra relied upon by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles for exercising the powers by the High Courts' under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Similarly in Ramveer Upadhyay's case referred to supra, relied upon by respondent Nos.2 and 3, upholding the order of the High Court dismissing the application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the criminal proceedings cannot nipped in the bud in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the light of the above propositions of law, let me examine whether this is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 11. Thus, based on the complaint filed by respondent No.2 a charge sheet came to be filed against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 325, 354, 341, 504, 506 r/w. 149 of IPC. According to the same the incident took place on 13.02.2021 and petitioners demanding divorce assaulted respondent Nos.2 and 3 etc, and this incident was witnessed by Basavaraj Mallappa Ambannavar, Anand Rottennavar, Veerabhadra Patil and Satish Badeppagol. They are cited as CWs.5 to 8. 12. Petitioners admit that on 13.02.2021 they were present at the scene of alleged incident. However, they have claimed that they had come to the spot in connection with mahazar drawn in Crime No. 10/2021 and misusing the said fact a false complaint came to be filed. The learned counsel for petitioners drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that though the alleged incident took place on 13.02.2021 and respondent No.2 lost two teeth, admittedly the complaint came to be filed on 16.02.2021 and respondent No.2 has allegedly taken treatment on 15.02.2021 and these aspects creates doubt as to the bonafides of the complaint. The learned counsel for petitioners drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that though the alleged incident took place on 13.02.2021 and respondent No.2 lost two teeth, admittedly the complaint came to be filed on 16.02.2021 and respondent No.2 has allegedly taken treatment on 15.02.2021 and these aspects creates doubt as to the bonafides of the complaint. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader drawn the attention of this Court to the OPD slip of Vijayakrishna Dental Hospital dated 13.02.2021 and a receipt cum prescription which prima-facie indicate that on 13.02.2021 petitioner No.2 has taken treatment for loss of two teeth. 13. Having regard to the fact that a mahazar was drawn on 13.02.2021 in Crime No.10/2021 at the matrimonial home of petitioner No.1, prima-facie establish the presence of petitioners at the scene of incident. It is also relevant to note that as per the said mahazar, it was drawn from 11-30 a.m to 12-30 p.m. According to the complaint filed by respondent No.2 the incident took place at 12-30 p.m. Whether after the mahazar in Crime No.10/2021 petitioners left the place or the incident as alleged in the complaint filed against them took place is a matter to be established through trial. 14. It is for the prosecution to prove that such incident took place and for the injuries sustained, respondent No.2 has taken treatment. It is also for the respondent No.2 to justify the delay in filing the complaint and for the trial Court to appreciate the said fact. After conducting detailed investigation charge sheet is filed against the petitioners and it makes out a prima-facie case. At this stage of considering petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, this Court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. 15. Now coming to the decisions relied upon by the petitioners. In Paramajit Batra's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and it is given a cloak of criminal offence. 15. Now coming to the decisions relied upon by the petitioners. In Paramajit Batra's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the criminal proceedings on the ground that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and it is given a cloak of criminal offence. However, in the present case though there is matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 having regard to the specific allegations made of incident dated 13.02.2021, there is no doubt that it attracts criminal liability and therefore this decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 16. In Anand Kumar's case referred to supra relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner it is held that the inherent powers of the High Court can be exercised even after the charge sheet is filed. The law on this aspect is very clear. However, on the facts and circumstances of each case it is required to examine whether the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. However, in the present case this is not the situation. Babu Ventakesh's Case referred to supra relied upon by the petitioners deals with private complaint without complying with the requirement of approaching the police and on their failure to file private compliant, that too supported by affidavit with proof of having approached the police. However the present case is based on complaint to the police and charge sheet is filed by them. Therefore this decision is also not applicable to the case on hand. 17. Thus from the above discussion I hold that this is not a fit case to interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and accordingly I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 18. Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, is hereby dismissed.