JUDGMENT S. D. Anand, J.:- Petitioners therein include the relations from the in-laws family of the estranged wife i.e. respondent no.2. Petitioner-Arjan Singh is father-in-law of respondent no.2. Petitioners Gurdeep Kaur, Ranjit Kaur and Jasbir Kaur are married sisters-in-law; while petitioner-Harjit Singh is brother-in-law of respondent no.2. 2. The following precise averments were made by the petitioners herein in para 11 (v) of the petition:- “(v) That the conduct of the complainant can be seen from the fact that on the basis of an undertaking given by her and her husband Bhagat Singh, this Hon’ble Court confirmed the bail application of Bhagat Singh. The undertaking was to the effect that the husband will withdraw the complaint (which he has on 06.09.2007) whereas the wife will get the present FIR quashed. However, after the passing of the order by this Hon’ble Court in Crl. Misc. No.27298-M of 2007 on 22.08.2007, an application for review of the said order dated 22.08.2007 was moved wherein a prayer was made that the undertaking given by the wife should be withdrawn meaning thereby that the FIR should proceed. Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron is seized of the matter and further proceedings have been stayed by this Hon’ble Court. These factors clearly establish that the complainant is making an attempt to unsettle her husband and to falsely implicate the present petitioners. The order granting bail dated 22.08.2007, the application for review dated 29.09.2007 and the order granting stay dated 16.01.2008 are attached herewith as Annexure P-11 to P-13.” 3. The corresponding para of the reply filed by the private respondent only describes the averments therein to be incorrect and denied. It is reproduced hereunder:- “That para no.11 is absolutely incorrect and the allegations in sub paras of para no.11 of the petitioner are incorrect and hence denied. In view of the fact that recalling application is pending P-12 the present petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.” 4. At the time of arguments before this Court, learned counsel for the private respondent is not in a position to deny that Bhagat Singh, husband of respondent no.2 did honour the compromise by withdrawing the complaint he had filed against his wife but that the wife had not honoured her undertaking. At the time of arguments before this Court, learned counsel for the private respondent is not in a position to deny that Bhagat Singh, husband of respondent no.2 did honour the compromise by withdrawing the complaint he had filed against his wife but that the wife had not honoured her undertaking. He tried to wriggle out of the predicament of having to explain it by raising a plea that wife had filed a plea for recall of that compromise. A copy of the order dated 22.8.2007 passed by a Coordinate Bench (S.S. Saron, J.) in allowing the compromise aforementioned has been placed on record as Annexure P-11. 5. The petitioner is 80 years widowed father-in-law of respondent no.2. Petitioners Gurdeep Kaur, Ranjit Kaur and Jasbir Kaur are married sisters-in-law; while petitioner-Harjit Singh is brother-in-law of respondent no.2. The married sisters-in-law are obviously residing at their matrimonial houses. 6. In the circumstances of the case, the continuance of the impugned prosecution shall amount to an abuse of the process of Court. If the plea for recall (allegedly filed by respondent no.2) is allowed, it will be open to respondent no.2 to also apply for the recall of this order. This Court cannot be a party to the persecution of relations of the husband just because his relationship with the wife has gone sour, particularly when they had ended their feud by a compromise. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly. The impugned prosecution shall stand quashed qua the petitioners. Disposed of accordingly. ----------