IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-31999 of 2008 Date of decision : 02-02-2009 Neelam and others .... Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Neelam, w/o Amarjit Singh respondent No.2. Amarjit Singh had filed complaint Annexure P-2 against his wife Neelam, her father Ram Chander, her mother Sheela and brother of Neelam, Rakesh @ Binta u/s 323/420/504/506/511/34 IPC. vide summoning order Annexure P-4, petitioners have been summoned to stand trial by the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala vide order dated 6-8-2008 u/s 323/506/34 IPC. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to mutual compromise Annexure P-3 where it was agreed that proceedings pending against each party shall be withdrawn. It was also agreed that both the parties will get divorce by mutual consent. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioner wife had not supported the case against the husband and husband has been acquitted for offence u/s 406/498-A IPC. It has been further submitted that parties have obtained divorce by mutual consent. In mutual compromise it was said that custody of the Tanvi daughter shall remain with the petitioner Neelam. This is case where the complainant husband after having benefit out of the compromise has resiled from Crl. Misc. No.M-31999 of 2008 -2- his part of the compromise. It has been stated that pendency of this complaint was not disclosed at the time of compromise. Petitioners have been summoned by the Court even though the complaint was pending before the compromise was effected. The conduct of the husband in not performing his part of the compromise and further putting the family of the wife to distress approach this Court seeking quashing of the FIR cannot be appreciated. Complainant respondent No.2 after having secured his acquittal, is pursuing with the complaint for offences which are compoundable only to harass the wife, to whom he has divorced by way of mutual consent. The conduct of the husband not to allow his wife and her family to live in peace and to make them approach this Court show that he should be fastened with a cost. Taking into consideration the fact that a present complaint and its continuation is a mala fide, impugned complaint along with subsequent proceedings is quashed. Present petition is accepted. Cost of Rs.10,000/- is to be paid by the husband to the petitioner wife for approaching this Court. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 2-2-2009 JUDGE manju