Crl. Misc. No. M-15325 of 2011 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-15325 of 2011 Date of Decision: 05.9.2011. Harinder Pal Singh and others ........Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. M.P.S.Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. S.S.Siao, Advocate for respondent No.2. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint No. 64 dated 21.04.2010 (Annexure P-1), under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('Act' for short). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition qua petitioner No.5 to enable her to take up all the pleas available to her during trial. Accordingly, this petition, qua petitioner No.5, is dismissed as withdrawn. Learned counsel on behalf of petitioners No. 1 to 4 Crl. Misc. No. M-15325 of 2011 -2 - has submitted that the said petitioners were residing separately and had no concern with the matrimonial life of respondent No.2. The said petitioners were not residing in the shared household. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioners No. 1 to 4 were visiting the matrimonial home of the complainant off and on and had been interfering in the matrimonial life of the complainant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition qua petitioners No. 1 to 4 deserves to be allowed. In the present case, petitioner No.2 is the sister of husband of the complainant. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.3 is the brother of the husband of the complainant and petitioner No.4 is the wife of petitioner No.3. Admittedly, the said petitioners are residing separately and are not residing in the matrimonial home of the complainant, i.e. the shared household. Since the petitioners No. 1 to 4 are not residing in the matrimonial home of complainant, the continuation of criminal proceedings against them would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed qua petitioners No. 1 to 4. The complaint No. 64 dated 21.04.2010 (Annexure P-1) of the Act and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed qua petitioners No. 1 to 4. (SABINA) JUDGE September 05, 2011 Gurpreet