Crl. Misc. No. M-36120 of 2009 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-36120 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.8.2011. Palo and others ........Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S.Brar, Asstt. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint No. 298/2 dated 09.08.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('Act' for short). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition qua petitioner No.4 to enable him to take up all the pleas available to him during trial. Accordingly, this petition, qua petitioner No.4, is dismissed as withdrawn. Learned counsel on behalf of petitioners No. 1 to 3 has submitted that the said petitioners were residing separately Crl. Misc. No. M-36120 of 2009 (O&M) -2 - and had no concern with the matrimonial life of respondent No.2. The said petitioners were not residing in the shared household. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition qua petitioners No. 1 to 3 deserves to be allowed. A perusal of the complaint (Annexure P-1) reveals that it has been averred by the complainant that at the time of her marriage, the entire family were living jointly but later on they had separated. The complainant was married to petitioner No.4 in June 1991 but no child was born to them. The case of the respondent No.2 is that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home in April 2007. The petitioners No. 1 to 3 in the petition have specifically averred that they are residing separately. The said fact finds support from the contentions in the complaint (Annexure P-1). Since the petitioners No. 1 to 3 were not residing in the matrimonial home of respondent No.2, the continuation of criminal proceedings against them would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed qua petitioners No. 1 to 3. The complaint No. 298/2 dated 09.08.2009 (Annexure P-1), under Section 12 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed qua petitioners No. 1 to 3. (SABINA) JUDGE August 24, 2011 Gurpreet