Criminal Misc. No.M-3729 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-3729 of 2008 Date of decision : 15.12.2008 Harinder Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. J.S.Brar , Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Advocate for the respondent-State. ***** S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioners are close relations (mother's sister's husband and Uncle and Aunt of the husband of respondent no.2) of the husband of estranged lady i.e. respondent no.2 Kanchan Bala. A plea for quashment of the FIR was instituted on the averment that parties had compounded the matter. At the time of motion hearing, an averment was made on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned FIR had been registered after the subsistence of the marriage for a period 10 years and not a whisper came to be uttered against the petitioners in the course of protracted matrimonial litigation between respondent no.2 and her husband. Further, on the next date of hearing, respondent no.2 appeared and the following order was recorded by a Coordinate Bench of this Court ( Mahesh Grover, J.) on 21.4.2008:- “Respondent No.2 – complainant, who is present in Court, Criminal Misc. No.M-3729 of 2008 -2- **** states that as a measure of compromise, she and her husband have decided to live together. She further prays for some time to make a statement in support of the compromise as she wants to test the strength of the compromise. Adjourned to 25.08.2008. In the meantime, the proceedings against the petitioners shall remain stayed keeping in view the fact that respondent No.2 – complainant has accepted the factum of compromise.” When the matter was taken up on 25.8.2008, respondent no.2 was present in the Court. She conceded that though she continues to stay at the matrimonial house, she required little more time to be sure of bona- fides of her husband. The matter was adjourned. She did not make any grievance of the validity of the compromise. On 4.9.2008, respondent no.2 informed the court that she had unpleasant experience in the course of co- habitation with her husband and that she does not want to stand by the compromise. She wanted time to to engage a counsel of her own. The matter was adjourned. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of respondent no.2. The matter was again adjourned for today. Even today, none has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.2. A perusal of the file shows that matrimonial dispute between the parties was amicably settled in the Lok Adalat on 6.10.2001 (Annexure P-5) and the husband got the petition for divorce dismissed in view of the compromise. Copy of the compromise deed has been placed on record As Annexure P/2. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the parties did come to terms in the context of matrimonial litigation and resumed co-habitation. Respondent no.2 cannot beallowed to wriggle out of the compromise in a such like manner. The allowance of Criminal Misc. No.M-3729 of 2008 -3- **** the proceedings in the impugned FIR shall amount to an abuse of the process of law. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned FIR No. 396 dated 10.12.2007 under Sections 406, 498-A/506 IPC shall stand quashed. December 15, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE