JUDGMENT (Common Prayer: These Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.6591 of 2015 pending on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai - 8 and quash the proceedings.) Common order: 1. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.5109 of 2016 is the husband of the second respondent herein. 2. The marriage between the parties said to have been solemnized on 16.06.2012 at Chennai. Thereafter, the couples settled at Bangalore in the matrimonial home along with family members of the petitioner from 20.06.2012 onwards. 3. As per the 2nd respondent, the petitioner had completed only his schooling but did not complete his graduation, whereas the 2nd respondent is a Graduate and holds a Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management. Further, the petitioner was 2 years younger than the 2nd respondent and also the 2nd respondent's family is financially much richer than the petitioner's family. 4. In or about the 3rd week of February 2013, the 2nd respondent left the matrimonial home without informing the petitioner and continued to stay in Chennai without any reason. Unable to bear the tension any longer, the petitioner sent notice to the 2nd respondent on 4th March, 2013, informing her of his intention to divorce (Talaq) her. 5. Crl.O.P.No.5109 of 2016 is filed by the husband/accused No.1; Crl.O.P.No.5458 of 2016 is filed by the parents of the accused and Crl.O.P.No.5459 of 2016 is filed by the sisters of the accused 5 & 6. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint under Sections 498A, 406 and 506(i) of the I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the 1st respondent registered a complaint against the petitioner and his family members as Crime No.1 of 2013. The brother of the petitioner was arrested on 24.03.2013 and remanded to Judicial custody. 7. 6. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint under Sections 498A, 406 and 506(i) of the I.P.C and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the 1st respondent registered a complaint against the petitioner and his family members as Crime No.1 of 2013. The brother of the petitioner was arrested on 24.03.2013 and remanded to Judicial custody. 7. In exercise of the power under Section 8(B) of the Act, an enquiry was made by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dowry Prohibition Office, Chennai - 1, in which the family members of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were interrogated on 13.01.2015, the enquiry report was submitted by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dowry Prohibition Office, Chennai - 1, under Section 8B of the Act stating as follows: "On hearing the statements from both sides, and through the documents, it could be seen that there would be difference of opinion and also some other grounds. But there is no basis for the dowry harassment. Hence there is no necessary for taking action under the Dowry Prohibition Act, and if the jewellery and the articles of the complainant are lying within the respondents it is hereby suggested to return them through the police enquiry". 8. The first respondent after investigation filed the charge sheet alleging the offences as stated above. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Social Welfare Officer who conducted the enquiry, there is no demand of dowry. The petitioner/ husband (Crl.O.P.No.5109 of 2016) has completed only his schooling. While the the second respondent-wife is a Graduate and holds Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management. 10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) also filed a status report wherein the 2nd respondent-wife as stated as under: with reference to my complaint dated 20th March 2013 and charge sheet filed. I would like to state that as I am married and settled down and have got back the following items Rolex watch Diamond Buttons draft of Rs.5 lakhs and Mac Book. Hence I am not insisting on other items and would want a quietus to this matter. In the circumstances I would not like to pursue this matter further. 11. Hence, she has got back all the materials that was given to the petitioner at the time of marriage is hereby recorded. 12. Hence I am not insisting on other items and would want a quietus to this matter. In the circumstances I would not like to pursue this matter further. 11. Hence, she has got back all the materials that was given to the petitioner at the time of marriage is hereby recorded. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent on instructions from the client has submitted that the second respondent/wife is withdrawing all the allegations made in the complaint for the better future and also the report of the District Social Welfare Officer. Hence, I find that continuation of the criminal case would be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, in exercise of powers confirmed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, I am inclined to quash the proceedings. 13. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and C.C.No.6591 of 2015 is quashed against all the petitioners herein. Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.