Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: - Petitioners, by way of instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short), seek quashing of FIR No.78 dated 17.7.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short), registered at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1), alongwith all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the order dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure P-4), whereby petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class (‘JMIC’ for short), Jalandhar.

2. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply on behalf of respondent no.1-State of Punjab was filed by way of affidavit dated 12.1.2015. A separate undated reply on behalf of respondent no.2- complainant was filed. However, despite having been impleaded as partyrespondent no.3, no reply was filed on behalf of Ms. Savita Bansal-estranged wife of petitioner no.1-Rajiv Mehta.

3. Shorn of detailed factual background, it would suffice to refer to the basic facts of the case, which are necessary for the disposal of the present petition. Marriage between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.3 took place on 30.10.2003. The coupled resided together at New Delhi for about a month and thereafter they left for Holland on 30.11.2003. Before marriage, petitioner no.1 was already staying abroad. He sponsored respondent no.3-his wife and she also went with her husband to Holland. Later on, couple shifted from Holland to England somewhere in the year 2005. Out of the wedlock, a daughter was born on 17.8.2006 in England. It seems that some temperamental differences arose between husband and wife, while they were staying in England. Wiferespondent no.3 filed a petition for divorce on 12.7.2010 against petitioner no.1-husband in the Family Court at Willesden County Court in England.

4. Simultaneously, respondent-wife, through her father-respondent no.2 got the impugned FIR dated 17.7.2010 registered against four persons of her in-laws family, including relatives of the husband i.e. his sister and brotherin- law. Although respondent no.2-complainant lodged the complaint against six persons, but Anil Walia, brother-in-law and Meenu Walia sister-in-law of respondent no.3-wife were found innocent by the police during the course of enquiry and FIR was not registered against them.

5. Marriage between the parties already stood dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 7.4.2014 passed by the Family Court at Willesden County Court in England, as per the own pleadings of complainant-respondent no.2. It is also pertinent to note that despite knowing fully well that the accused persons were staying abroad, complainant-respondent no.2 gave their Indian address at the time of registration of the impugned FIR. This was the reason that no notice was issued to any of the accused at their residential address of England, because of which they came to be declared proclaimed offenders, vide order dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure P-4). Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of the impugned FIR, impugned order Annexure P-4 declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offenders and all other consequential proceedings arising from the impugned FIR, at the hands of the accused-petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR is nothing, but a blatant misuse of the process of law. Respondent-wife sought and had already been granted a decree of divorce by the court in England. She moved the first complaint before the police in England on 14.2.2010. Allegations levelled by the respondent-wife against both the petitioners herein were found false by the police in England, as stated in para 16 of the petition at page 12 of the paper book. He also refers to the averments taken by the respondent-wife in her pleadings before the court in England, reproduced in para 21 of the petition at page 22 of the paper book, to the effect that “no claim/compl