- (1.) 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.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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 Rs.40,000/-. Parties have mutually agreed to 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 petitionerhusband 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.;