Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39616 of 2011 ====================================================== Birendra Kumar Mathur & B K Mathur & Ors. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Harishankar Roy, Advocate Mr. Gajendra Prasad Yadav (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 18-12-2012 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and the learned counsel for the State. In this case the petitioners are challenging the order of cognizance dated 4.2.2011 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1374 (C) of 2010 for offence under [STATUTE] and Section 4 of the Dowry Prevention Act. It appears from the aforesaid complaint petition that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and opposite party No.2 was solemnized on 20.2.2007. During the marriage substantial amount of gifts were exchanged between the parties but the marriage could not survive. Ultimately, this complaint petition has been filed making an allegation of harassment by the wife against the husband and their family members. On the basis of S.A. and the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39616 of 2011 (3) dt.18-12-2012 2 evidence of other witnesses, the Court took cognizance under the aforesaid Sections but during the pendency of this application the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court. Today a joint compromise petition attached with the affidavit of both the parties has been filed with a prayer that they have settled their dispute outside the Court and the terms has been mentioned in paragraph 7 of this petition, which are as follows:- “(i) The husband (petitioner no.1) shall withdraw Mat. Case No. 307 of 2010 pending before Learned Principal Judge Family Court, Patna. (ii) That the petitioner no.1 (husband) and O.P. No.2, the wife, agreed to file consent petition [STATUTE] (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of Marriage between them before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna and the same petition has already been filed without any claim or counter claim with joint affidavit and pending before learned Principal Judge, Family Court Patna. (iii) That opposite party No.2 agreed to withdraw the Complaint Case No. 1374 (C )/ 2010 along with allegations made against the petitioner no.2 in said complaint petition filed which is pending before learned S.D.J.M., Patna out of which this Misc. application arises and accordingly, the petition for Withdrawal-cum-Compromise has been filed before learned S.D.J.M., Patna on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39616 of 2011 (3) dt.18-12-2012 3 28.11.2012. (iv) That it is further submitted and brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court that the parties have no any type of claim or counter claim against each other now or any time later. (v) That the parties have further agreed to initiate to withdraw all the cases against each other pending in the respective court.” On the basis of the aforesaid compromise petition a joint prayer has been made that the proceeding of the Court below and the order of cognizance be quashed. In view of the judgment reported in PLJR 2012 (1) SC 133 Shiji @ Pappu and others vs. Radhika and another wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held even in a non- compoundable offence, if the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and there is remote chance of conviction of accused, the High Court under the inherent jurisdiction, quash the proceeding of the court below. In view of the compromise between the parties as it is basically a matrimonial dispute having no ramification of general public, the order of cognizance aforesaid is quashed and accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to following Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39616 of 2011 (3) dt.18-12-2012 4 condition. As the application of divorce is pending before the family court whereby the application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has jointly been filed by both the parties, if any party withdraw the consent especially the husband, in that circumstances, the present proceeding will automatically revive. As has been informed that the presiding officer of the Family Court is going to superannuate from service in the last week of December 2012, in this view of the matter after joining the new presiding officer the family Court will take up this case in priority basis and pass the order on joint application filed under Section 13(B) by the parties. Let the order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioners. S.S./- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 498

Statute Text:
Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. Enticing or taking away or detaining with a criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.