law, petitioner No. 5, is the sister-in-law, and, petitioner No. 6, is the husband of petitioner No. 5. He further submitted that, respondent No. 2, left the house of petitioners No. 1 and 2, after taking a cash amount of Rs. 50,000/-, from her husband, which he received, as a sale consideration, after selling his house, on 20.10.05. He further submitted that, respondent No. 2, refused to join the company of her husband. He further submitted that, thereafter, a petition, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was filed, by petitioner No. 3, against respondent No. 2, on 16.07.07, wherein, she was ordered, to be summoned for 16.08.07. He further submitted that, after getting notice of the said petition, Sarup Singh father of respondent No. 2, got registered the instant false FIR, under Section 498-A IPC, against the petitioners. He further submitted that, the petitioners, never subjected respondent No. 2, to cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry. He further submitted that, petitioner No. 4, brother-in-law, petitioner No. 5, sister-in-law, and, petitioner No. 6, husband of Taranjit Kaur, petitioner No. 5, had no connection, whatsoever, with respondent No. 2, nor there could be any occasion, for them, to treat her with cruelty, in connection with the demand of dowry, as they were residing, in separate houses, after marriage. He further submitted that, even a compromise, was arrived at, in the petition, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, wherein, a statement (Annexure P7) of respondent No. 2, was recorded, on 29.03.08, wherein, she stated that, she had compromised the matter with her husband. He further submitted that the FIR and the
