(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition under Section 482 for quashing of complaint No. 276/1/25.4.2009 (Annexure P -1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 11.7.2011 (Annexure P -2). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 1 Amritpal Singh got married to Mamta on 17.9.2004. Thereafter, Mamta left for England on 23.7.2005. No child was born to the parties out of the said wedlock. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) seeking a decree of divorce. The said petition was allowed vide judgment/decree dated 27.2.2008. The decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court was upheld by this Court in FAO No. M -111 of 2009 vide Annexure P -4. The complaint in question had been filed by the mother of Mamta levelling false allegations. Mamta is residing in England.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that criminal proceedings against the petitioners were liable to continue. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Apex Court has held as under: -
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , in the present case, petitioner No. 1 got married to Mamta on 17.9.2004. Mamta applied for job in United Kingdom and got a visa in this regard. Mamta left for England on 23.7.2005. Petitioner No. 1 filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act seeking a decree of divorce. In the said petition, Mamta appeared before the Court and her examination -in -chief and part cross -examination was recorded. However, Mamta did not appear again for her further cross -examination. The Trial Court allowed the petition filed by petitioner No. 1 and a decree of divorce was passed in favour of petitioner No. 1 on 27.2.2009. The said judgment and decree were challenged by Mamta by way of FAO No. 111 of 2009. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 3.2.2011 Annexure P -4.