JUDGMENT S.J. Hyder, J. - This is an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts revealed by the affidavit go to show that they have moved in a most unfortunate manner. Applicant No. 1, Shyam Sunder Sharma, is a practising Advocate while applicant No. 2 is his wife. Applicant Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are their sons and they are well placed in life. Applicant No. 3, Prakash Kumar Sharma had the misfortune of being married to Smt. Suman Sharma Respondent No. 2. Sri S.N. Sharma, Respondent No. 3 is the father of Respondent No. 2. 2. The marriage between Prakash Kumar Sharma and Smt. Suman Sharma was solemnized on May 8, 1970. A male child was born from the union on September 5, 1971. The marriage, however, did not prosper and it is stated by the applicants that Prakash Kumar Sharma was obliged to institute Suit No. 31 of 1972 for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife. At that time Sri S.N. Sharma, father of Smt. Suman Sharma was posted as ADM (J), Varanasi. It is stated by the applicants that a case of Kallu Seth was pending in his court. Sri S.N. Sharma, persuaded Kallu Seth to institute criminal prosecution against the applicants in his court and a case was accordingly filed. Since this case is no longer alive nothing further need be said about it. On January 28, 1975 applicant No. 3 filed suit No. 6 of 1975 for divorce against his wife Smt. Suman Sharma. The suit was decreed with the consent of the parties. It may be stated that in the suit for restitution of conjugal rights referred to above conciliation proceedings were held but proved abortive. It is evident that from the very outset the marriage of Prakash Kumar Sharma with Smt. Suman Sharma was on the rocks and it was a case of broken bone. This fact was judicially recognized by the decree passed in Suit No. 6 of 1975. 3. This is only by way of introduction. On March 20, 1973, it is stated that Respondent No. 3 lodged a criminal complaint against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323/504/506/342/147/386/392/403 Indian Penal Code at police station Cantt. At the relevant time Respondent No. 3 was posted as ADM, Varanasi. 3. This is only by way of introduction. On March 20, 1973, it is stated that Respondent No. 3 lodged a criminal complaint against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 323/504/506/342/147/386/392/403 Indian Penal Code at police station Cantt. At the relevant time Respondent No. 3 was posted as ADM, Varanasi. The case was investigated by the police and a charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants on April 9, 1973. The criminal case started on the basis of the said charge-sheet which was numbered as 163 of 1973 and is now pending in the court of Munsif-Magistrate and has been renumbered as 691 A of 1975. The present application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the applicants on November 27, 1980. Upto that time about seven years had elapsed and no progress worth the name had been made towards the conclusion of of that case. A copy of the order sheet of the court concerned has been attached with the affidavit and it goes to show that hearings were adjourned for no rhyme and even the cross-examination of the complainant still remains to be concluded. This is a scandalous state of affairs which has to be condemned in no uncertain terms. 4. The object of the law or procedure is to attain justice for the person who seeks it. Procedure departs from the course set forth for it if instead of facilitating justice it tends to obstruct it or is allowed to be used as an instrument of personal vendetta and oppression. This is actually what has been happening in the instant case. 5. The marriage tie is one of the sweetest relations between human beings. Some times they tend of turn sour and it becomes impossible for the husband and wife to live together in harmony coupled with joy. When that unfortunate stage is reached the best thing for the parties is to separate like reasonable persons and start a fresh life according to their desire. As already indicated above that the marriage of the parties had already been dissolved by a decree of the civil court. There is no justification for carrying on the vendetta against the applicants either at the instance of Respondent No. 2 or her father, Respondent No. 3. As already indicated above that the marriage of the parties had already been dissolved by a decree of the civil court. There is no justification for carrying on the vendetta against the applicants either at the instance of Respondent No. 2 or her father, Respondent No. 3. From the circumstances of the case there is no doubt that the machinery of the Criminal Procedure has been moved against the applicants in order to abuse the process of justice and with a view to harass them un-necessarily. 6. The result is that this application succeeds and is hereby allowed. Proceedings in Criminal Case No. 691 A of 1975 State v. Shyam Sunder and Ors. Criminal Case No. 691 A of 1975, Police Station Cantt., pending before the Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi are hereby quashed. Application allowed.