IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M- 30672 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 25.2.2009 Amarjit Singh @ Vicky & Ors Versus Smt. Navleen Kaur @ Neetu & Ors. Present:- Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Arshwinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. M.S.Bajwa, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S.BEDI. (J) (Oral) Crl. Misc. No. 8327 of 2009 Crl. Misc. application is allowed. Reply filed on behalf of respondents, is permitted to be taken on record. Crl. Misc. No. M-30672 of 2008 Petitioners have filed this petition for quashing of complaint filed by respondent-Navleen Kaur under Section 12 read with Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violance Act, 2005, Annexure P-1, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, and the subsequent proceedings which have arisen out of the said complaint, inter alia, on the ground that similar complaints had earlier been filed by the complainant against the petitioners and that complaint is deviced to harass the petitioners. As per Section 12(5) of the Act, Magistrate is required to make earnest endeavor to dispose of an application within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing, but no steps have been taken to dispose of the application. Crl. Misc. No. M- 30672 of 2008 -2- On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had been asked to place on record the reply filed before the trial Court to find out whether plea of maintainability of the petition has been taken before the Magistrate. After carefully going through the contents of the petition, it is apparent that respondent-Navleen Kaur has launched a number of proceedings against the petitioners, which include FIR under Section 498-A (Annexure P/7), complaint (Annexure P-1), petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C (Annexure P/14), complaint to S.S.P (Annexure P/15), Security proceedings as per Kalandra (Annexure P/16) and a complaint under Sections 406, 498-A, 495, 148 and 149 IPC (Annexure P/10). Petitioners have also filed number of cases which include civil suit for recovery, complaint under Section 313 and 120-B IPC (Annexure P/4), a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act (Annexure P/6), a suit for permanent injunction (Annexure P/18) and another suit for injunction (Annexure P/19). Parties have been litigating against each other. In view of the history of prolonged litigation between the petitioners and respondents, it will not be expedient in the interest of justice, at this stage to interfere in the complaint initiated by the respondents (Annexure P/1). This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the pleas taken up in this petition before the concerned Court. It will be open to the petitioners to avail all the other legal remedies available to them. With the above said observation, the present petition is disposed of warranting no directions, at this stage being pre-mature. February 25, 2009 (M.M.S.Bedi) tripti Judge