ORDER : 1. Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the FIR and complaint dated 22.02.2022 in Crime No.11/2022 registered with respondent No.1, on the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.2. 2. Petitioners have contended that respondent No.1 has registered the case without proper application of mind and non-consideration of the statements made in the complaint which are false. In the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners, respondent No.1police have erred in registering the case. Respondent No.1police have not followed the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 3. The respondent No.1 has not considered the fact that the allegations made in the complaint does not attract provisions of Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent No.1police have erred in not appreciating the fact that on the alleged date of incident, petitioners were not physically present at Koppal. Without conducting preliminary enquiry, the respondent No.1police have erred in registering the case. Having regard to the fact that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 is dissolved by the Family Court at Austin, USA, the allegations made in the complaint are false, frivolous and with a view to victimize the petitioners. 4. In fact vide message/email dated 28.02.2022, respondent No.2 has informed petitioner No.1 that she would be returning to USA to complete the formalities in respect of final decree of divorce. When the alleged harassment took place at USA, respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to register the case and proceed against the petitioners. Only to harass the petitioners, complaint is filed and prays to allow the petition. 5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the following judgments : i. Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another (Gian Singh case), (2012) 10 SCC 303 ii. State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 iii. Y. Narasimha Rao & others vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi & others, (1191) 3 SCC 451 6. State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359 iii. Y. Narasimha Rao & others vs. Y. Venkata Lakshmi & others, (1191) 3 SCC 451 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 and the learned counsel representing respondent No.2 submitted that based on the complaint, case is registered and investigation is taken up. The allegations made in the complaint requires thorough investigation and prays to reject the petition. 7. Heard the arguments and perused the records. 8. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. According to the petitioners, respondent No.2 is the ex-wife of petitioner No.1. 9. On 22.02.2022, respondent No.2 has filed complaint alleging that her marriage with petitioner No.1 was solemnized on 12.02.2020 at Koppal. At the time of marriage, petitioners demanded and received 50 tolas of gold, 5 kgs of silver and Rs.50 lakhs in cash. Her harassment started immediately on the next day of the marriage for on 13.02.2020 i.e., on the next date of her marriage, the marriage of her brother was solemnized. However, petitioner No.1 did not allow her to attend the said marriage and took her to Bengaluru. On the 3rd day of marriage i.e., on 14.02.2020, all the petitioners started harassing her saying that dowry paid is not sufficient and demanded additional dowry in the form of 20 tolas of gold and Rs.20 lakhs in cash. 10. In the complaint, it is further stated that on 28.02.2020 i.e., within a period of 16 days from the date of her marriage, she left for USA along with petitioner No.1, but petitioners No.2 and 3 remained at Bengaluru. She alleges that though they were staying at Bengaluru, they used to make phone calls to her and demand additional dowry and in fact through her father she came to know that her family members and well wishers advised petitioners No.2 and 3. Again she states that on 21.11.2021 at 12 noon, petitioners No.2 and 3 visited the house of her father at Koppal and reiterated their demand for additional dowry and gave threat. Ultimately, on 18.02.2022 she came back to Koppal and on 22.02.2022 she filed the complaint alleging the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 11. Ultimately, on 18.02.2022 she came back to Koppal and on 22.02.2022 she filed the complaint alleging the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 11. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that each and every allegations are false. In fact photographs produced by the petitioners goes to show that respondent No.2 and petitioners attended the marriage of the brother of respondent No.2 and he arranged for a cake cutting ceremony for the parents of respondent No.2. Adverting the notice of the Court at the documents produced by the petitioners, learned counsel representing them submitted that at the instance of petitioner No.1, a divorce petition was filed by him wherein a temporary order is passed directing the petitioner No.1 to pay a sum of $2690.76 per month towards temporary spouses support and also $1200 to cover the security deposit of her new apartment and $500 towards moving expenses and thereby respondent No.2 started living in a separate house at USA. Mediation proceedings were held and a settlement was arrived at on 01.04.2022. Ultimately a final decree of divorce was drawn on 02.09.2022. 12. In fact during her cross examination, a specific question was put to respondent No.2 as to whether petitioner No.1 at any point of time physically abused her, for which she has answered in the negative. Throughout, respondent No.2 has not made any allegations whatsoever against petitioners No.1 to 3. She has submitted to the jurisdiction of the Family Court at USA and agreed for a decree of divorce. The decree of divorce also contains details of gold ornaments which were taken by respondent No.2 with her. It also refers to some ornaments which respondent No.2 claims to be with petitioner No.1, however he has disputed the said fact but agreed to return them if he ultimately finds them in his residence. 13. It appears that after returning from USA, the respondent No.2 has chosen to file a complaint for the first time alleging that there was dowry demand and harassment for not fulfilling the alleged demand. Very conveniently in the complaint, she has not disclosed the fact that divorce proceedings were moved in USA and ultimately orders were passed and the benefit she has obtained through the said order. Very conveniently in the complaint, she has not disclosed the fact that divorce proceedings were moved in USA and ultimately orders were passed and the benefit she has obtained through the said order. Ultimately at no point of time respondent No.2 has stayed with petitioners No.2 and 3. Within a period of 14 days of marriage, she has left for USA. The only allegation against petitioners No.2 and 3 is that they used to make telephonic calls and demand dowry. 14. When respondent No.2 had the opportunity of contesting the divorce proceedings initiated before the Family Court, USA, if there was any such demand for dowry and harassment, she could have disclosed the said fact to the American Court and lodged the complaint. The conduct of respondent No.2 silently getting divorce and benefits arising out of it and leaving USA, coming back to India and filing the complaint without disclosing the proceedings held at the Family Court, USA indicate that, only to harass the petitioners, she has chosen to file such a complaint and also sent an intimation to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India against the petitioners more particularly about petitioner No.1 who is working at USA. The endorsement made on the said complaint goes to show that her petition was closed as petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have arrived at a settlement. Having regard to these aspects, certainly the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of the Court. 15. For the above reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed and accordingly I proceed to pass the following : ORDER Petition is allowed. The FIR and complaint dated 22.02.2022 in Crime No.11/2022 registered by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed. In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.