Judgment ( 1. ) WITH the consent of parties matter is finally heard. Petitioner have filed this petition under section 482 Crpc is set aside the order dated 21. 11. 2008 passed by 3rd ASJ Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 94/2008 confirming order dated 3. 11. 2007 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior in criminal Case No. 13600/06 by which particulars of offence were stated to petitioners under Section 500 Indian Penal Code. ( 2. ) SUBJECT matter of petition is that respondent No1s brother Sandip Jain and petitioner No. 3 were husband and wife and in matrimonial case a decree of mutual divorce was granted in their favour under section 13b of Hindu Marriage Act. This court in MCrc No. 668/2007 by order dated 2. 4. 2007 quashed, proceeding concerning in criminal case No. 15625/2006 arising out of crime No. 70/2006 registered at police station Jhansi Road against respondent Sunil jain, Smt Babita Jain and three others in the basis of compromise between parties. Respondents complainant have filed a complaint under Section 499,500,504 IPC with mala fide intention against petitioners and which is registered as case No. 13600/2006 that case deserves to be quashed as all other matters have been already settled between parties. ( 3. ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that complaint filed by respondents is based on reply filed by the petitioner No. 3 in divorce case in which allegations were made that Sandip Jain brother of respondent No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 3 is having illicit relation with respondent No. 2 who is his Bhabi/respondent No. 1s wife. It is contended that as the divorce matter was compromised between parties all the averments and allegation made in reply of notice by petitioner No. 3 is condoned on basis of compromise between parties. It is further submitted that said reply was sent in a closed envelope which was not published at all, therefore, ingredient of Section 500 IPC is not attracted. It is further contended that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the. reply filed in matrimonial case by petitioner No, 3 and no case under Section 500 IPC is made out against them. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further contended that criminal proceeding under Section 498a, 34 IPC were also quashed by the High Court in M. Cr. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the. reply filed in matrimonial case by petitioner No, 3 and no case under Section 500 IPC is made out against them. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further contended that criminal proceeding under Section 498a, 34 IPC were also quashed by the High Court in M. Cr. C. No. 668/2007 on the basis of compromise between the parties. Thus, there exists no dispute of any kind between the parties and therefore there should be no litigation in future. It is further submitted that the complaint has been filed with mala fide intention hence proceeding concerning criminal case No. 13600/2006 pending in Court of jmfc Gwalior deserves to be quashed for commission of offence under Section 500 ipc and petitioners deserve to be discharged. ( 5. ) COMBATING the claim of the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents submitted that averments and allegations made in reply of notice sent by petitioner No. 3 to her husband are apparently defamatory as allegations lebelled against husband that he is having illicit relations with respondent no. 2. The aforesaid reply to notice was submitted before the Court and therefore, it cannot be said that no publicity was made and matter came to the knowledge of the relatives and general public and as such reputation of respondent No. 1, husband of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 is ruined as allegations are made in order to defame respondents and their family members. It is further submitted that petitioners 1 and 2 are also similarly responsible under Section 500 IPC as at their instance this reply was filed by petitioner No. 3 to the notice issued to her by her husband. ( 6. ) CONSIDERED rival arguments of both the parties and perused the record. ( 7. ) SO far as order passed by this Court in m. Cr. C. No. 668/23007 by which dealing with petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. filed for quashment of Criminal case No. 15625/ 2006 is concerned that proceeding was quashed on the ground that case under Section 498a IPC is based on matrimonial case under Section 498a IPC is based on matrimonial relationship which is no longer in existence between parties that is respondent no. P. C. filed for quashment of Criminal case No. 15625/ 2006 is concerned that proceeding was quashed on the ground that case under Section 498a IPC is based on matrimonial case under Section 498a IPC is based on matrimonial relationship which is no longer in existence between parties that is respondent no. 2 petitioner No. 3 Shubra Jain of present case and her husband and considering the ground that Shubra Jain has given consent for quashing that criminal cases that matter is different matter on the basis of that compromise no ground is made out to quash the proceedings under Section 500 IPC pending against the petitioners. ( 8. ) SO far as another matrimonial matter is concerned, it is admitted fact that in matrimonial proceedings respondents No. 1 and 2 were not party. That matrimonial matter was between husband and wife i. e. petitioner No. 3 and Sandip Jain, brother of respondent No. 1. Therefore, respondents are not bound by any compromise made in matrimonial matter in which they were not party. As far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, since she was the author of the reply to notice in which allegations and averments alleged to be defamatory are labelled against respondent No. 2 wife of respondent no. 1 the proceedings under Section 500 IPC will continue against her in accordance with law. So far as petitioners No. 1 and 2 are concerned, neither they are responsible for allegations and averments made in reply to notice filed by petitioner No. 3 nor there is any material on record to presume that this reply was filed at their instance. Thus, proceedings under Section 500 IPC pending in the Court of JMFC Gwalior in criminal case no. 13600 of 2006 against the petitioners no. 1 and 2 deserve to be dropped and are directed to be dropped. ( 9. ) WITH the aforesaid direction, petition is disposed of. Petition allowed partly. 2009-Crimes-4-68 , HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Coram : Indrani Datta, J. Aug 25,2009 J P JAIN Vs SUNIL JAIN ( 1. ) WITH the consent of parties matter is finally heard. Petitioner have filed this petition under section 482 Crpc is set aside the order dated 21. 11. 2008 passed by 3rd ASJ Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 94/2008 confirming order dated 3. 11. ) WITH the consent of parties matter is finally heard. Petitioner have filed this petition under section 482 Crpc is set aside the order dated 21. 11. 2008 passed by 3rd ASJ Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 94/2008 confirming order dated 3. 11. 2007 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior in criminal Case No. 13600/06 by which particulars of offence were stated to petitioners under Section 500 Indian Penal Code. ( 2. ) SUBJECT matter of petition is that respondent No1s brother Sandip Jain and petitioner No. 3 were husband and wife and in matrimonial case a decree of mutual divorce was granted in their favour under section 13b of Hindu Marriage Act. This court in MCrc No. 668/2007 by order dated 2. 4. 2007 quashed, proceeding concerning in criminal case No. 15625/2006 arising out of crime No. 70/2006 registered at police station Jhansi Road against respondent Sunil jain, Smt Babita Jain and three others in the basis of compromise between parties. Respondents complainant have filed a complaint under Section 499,500,504 IPC with mala fide intention against petitioners and which is registered as case No. 13600/2006 that case deserves to be quashed as all other matters have been already settled between parties. ( 3. ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioners that complaint filed by respondents is based on reply filed by the petitioner No. 3 in divorce case in which allegations were made that Sandip Jain brother of respondent No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 3 is having illicit relation with respondent No. 2 who is his Bhabi/respondent No. 1s wife. It is contended that as the divorce matter was compromised between parties all the averments and allegation made in reply of notice by petitioner No. 3 is condoned on basis of compromise between parties. It is further submitted that said reply was sent in a closed envelope which was not published at all, therefore, ingredient of Section 500 IPC is not attracted. It is further contended that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the. reply filed in matrimonial case by petitioner No, 3 and no case under Section 500 IPC is made out against them. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further contended that criminal proceeding under Section 498a, 34 IPC were also quashed by the High Court in M. Cr. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the. reply filed in matrimonial case by petitioner No, 3 and no case under Section 500 IPC is made out against them. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further contended that criminal proceeding under Section 498a, 34 IPC were also quashed by the High Court in M. Cr. C. No. 668/2007 on the basis of compromise between the parties. Thus, there exists no dispute of any kind between the parties and therefore there should be no litigation in future. It is further submitted that the complaint has been filed with mala fide intention hence proceeding concerning criminal case No. 13600/2006 pending in Court of jmfc Gwalior deserves to be quashed for commission of offence under Section 500 ipc and petitioners deserve to be discharged. ( 5. ) COMBATING the claim of the petitioners, learned counsel for respondents submitted that averments and allegations made in reply of notice sent by petitioner No. 3 to her husband are apparently defamatory as allegations lebelled against husband that he is having illicit relations with respondent no. 2. The aforesaid reply to notice was submitted before the Court and therefore, it cannot be said that no publicity was made and matter came to the knowledge of the relatives and general public and as such reputation of respondent No. 1, husband of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 is ruined as allegations are made in order to defame respondents and their family members. It is further submitted that petitioners 1 and 2 are also similarly responsible under Section 500 IPC as at their instance this reply was filed by petitioner No. 3 to the notice issued to her by her husband. ( 6. ) CONSIDERED rival arguments of both the parties and perused the record. ( 7. ) SO far as order passed by this Court in m. Cr. C. No. 668/23007 by which dealing with petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. filed for quashment of Criminal case No. 15625/ 2006 is concerned that proceeding was quashed on the ground that case under Section 498a IPC is based on matrimonial case under Section 498a IPC is based on matrimonial relationship which is no longer in existence between parties that is respondent no. P. C. filed for quashment of Criminal case No. 15625/ 2006 is concerned that proceeding was quashed on the ground that case under Section 498a IPC is based on matrimonial case under Section 498a IPC is based on matrimonial relationship which is no longer in existence between parties that is respondent no. 2 petitioner No. 3 Shubra Jain of present case and her husband and considering the ground that Shubra Jain has given consent for quashing that criminal cases that matter is different matter on the basis of that compromise no ground is made out to quash the proceedings under Section 500 IPC pending against the petitioners. ( 8. ) SO far as another matrimonial matter is concerned, it is admitted fact that in matrimonial proceedings respondents No. 1 and 2 were not party. That matrimonial matter was between husband and wife i. e. petitioner No. 3 and Sandip Jain, brother of respondent No. 1. Therefore, respondents are not bound by any compromise made in matrimonial matter in which they were not party. As far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, since she was the author of the reply to notice in which allegations and averments alleged to be defamatory are labelled against respondent No. 2 wife of respondent no. 1 the proceedings under Section 500 IPC will continue against her in accordance with law. So far as petitioners No. 1 and 2 are concerned, neither they are responsible for allegations and averments made in reply to notice filed by petitioner No. 3 nor there is any material on record to presume that this reply was filed at their instance. Thus, proceedings under Section 500 IPC pending in the Court of JMFC Gwalior in criminal case no. 13600 of 2006 against the petitioners no. 1 and 2 deserve to be dropped and are directed to be dropped. ( 9. ) WITH the aforesaid direction, petition is disposed of. Petition allowed partly.