Civil Revision No. 4203 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4203 of 2007 Date of decision : 7.1.2010 Piare Lal .....Petitioner Versus Asha Rani and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Sarabjit Khaira, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner-respondent has a grievance which may be indicated as under:- There were a number of litigations pending between the parties who are estranged partners of a matrimonial alliance. The parties arrived at a settlement, in terms whereof the petitioner herein agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- per month to the respondent-wife as maintenance for life. It was further agreed that both the parties shall withdraw the respective cases filed by them against each other. The petitioner-husband had already purchased a house for the respondent-wife at Sujanpur in terms of the compromise. The respondent-wife was to transfer that house in the name of the petitioner-husband who had agreed to purchase a house for her at Dina Nagar in lieu thereof. Though it is common ground that the respondent-wife has withdrawn a prosecution filed by her against the petitioner under Section 494 IPC on 14.6.2005, there is a controversy about whether an FIR filed by her against the petitioner-husband on an Civil Revision No. 4203 of 2007 -2- **** allegation that he had secured an employment on the basis of impersonation/forgery can be withdrawn by her. The petitioner has a grievance that respondent-wife ought to have withdrawn that prosecution as well. The plea raised on behalf of the respondent-wife is that the controversy aforementioned has nothing to do with the matrimonial dispute between the parties. Even otherwise, the averment proceeds, she is not in a position to withdraw that prosecution which is in the form of a State case which is pending in the Court and is only the Public Prosecutor incharge of the case who is competent to withdraw from the prosecution in accordance with law. It is further common ground that petitioner-husband had already filed a plea for contempt against the respondent-wife on account of non- compliance of certain terms and conditions of the compromise by the latter. The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner herein to raise all these pleas before the learned Trial Court where the above mentioned prosecution is pending and also before the Court which is seized of the contempt plea filed by the petitioner. January 7, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No