Criminal Misc. No. M-8942 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-8942 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.5.2009 Chand Rani and Others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Saurav Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 159 dated 9.10.2008 registered at police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, under Sections 498-A, & 406 IPC on basis of compromise (Annexure P2) and the judgment passed by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent in favour of petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 has been passed. Notice of motion was issued. Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate, has caused appearance on 15.4.2009 when case was adjourned to 28.4.2009, 5.5.2009, 8.5.2009 & 11.5.2009. Criminal Misc. No. M-8942 of 2009 2 The differences between the parties have not been resolved. Stance of Kumud Jain, respondent No.2 is that all her testimonials, which were in her matrimonial home, have been retained by petitioner No.3 and the same have not been returned. Respondent No.2 Kumud Jain has also made a grievance that she, on trust, gave many signed cheques to her husband-petitioner No.3 Sunil. Mr. Saurav Khurana, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners has stated that no certificates or cheques are with the petitioners. An attempt was made on various dates to revolve the dispute. Counsel for the parties, on joint request, sought date to iron out the differences. The parties are adamant. Plea advanced by petitioner No.3-husband that he will get all the certificates prepared from various authorities in duplicate and he will not use any cheque if the numbers are provided is not acceptable to respondent No.2-wife. A suggestion made that indemnity bond can be sworn in by petitioner No.3 and he can pay some amount to facilitate preparation of the certificates has not also been accepted, by petitioner No.3. Parties, who have taken divorce, still intend to continue with their shadow boxing. This Court cannot become party to this. Therefore, prayer for quashing of the FIR at this stage cannot be entertained. However, This Court do hope that time is a great healer and with the passage of time better sense may prevail upon the parties. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners No.1 and petitioner No.2 are aged mother and father of Criminal Misc. No. M-8942 of 2009 3 husband of the complainant. Therefore, presence of petitioners No.1 and 2 be exempted before the trial Court. I find merit in this submission of counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, personal appearance of the petitioners No.1 & 2 is exempted before the trial Court subject to filing an undertaking that they shall cause appearance as and when required and the evidence recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel shall be binding upon them. Trial Court may also specify any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the petitioners No.1 & 2. On the furnishing of undertaking, the personal appearance of petitioners No.1 & 2 shall stand exempted. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge May 18, 2009 “DK”