IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-22028 of 2010 Date of decision:- December 8, 2011 Devi Lal & others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners pray for quashing of the criminal complaint filed against them by respondent no.2 leading to their summoning under Sections 406/498-A/323/506/34 IPC. The petitioners have only been summoned under Sections 406/498-A/34 IPC. The petitioners plead their false implication and also say that the matter was settled and the complainant has taken her Istridhan, but now she is not coming forward to settle the issue with the petitioners. Notice was issued and in response, counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent-wife. Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the parties have agreed to separate and so Istridhan was returned. In addition, the petitioner-husband was required to pay a sum of `40,000/-. Parties have mutually agreed to Crl. Misc. No. M-22028 of 2010 -2- present a petition for divorce. Respondent No.2 did so complying with the terms of the agreement, but petitioner No.1-husband appeared to oppose the prayer made in the petition. The divorce was granted against which petitioner No.1 has filed an appeal before this Court. Counsel for respondent No.2, however, points out that respondent-wife is still ready to negotiate in case the petitioner- husband withdraws the appeal, which he has filed challenging the decree granting divorce in favour of respondent No.2. Counsel for the petitioners, however, says that petitioner No.1 is not ready to do so as he wishes to live with his wife and wants to reconstruct this marriage. When the proposal was given to the parties to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for settling the issue, counsel for the petitioners says that the efforts were indeed made in this regard by sending the FAO, which is pending before this Court, but it remained unsuccessful. In this background, no justifiable ground is made out to quash the complaint or the summoning order. Rather it is pointed out that the summoning order has not been placed on record or put to challenge in the present petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. December 08, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE