IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38699 of 2009 1. Aditya V. Shastri, 2. Arun V. Shastri, sons of Vijay R. Shastri, 3. Archana A. Shastri, wife of Arun V. Shastri, 4. Amresh V. Shastri, son of Vijay R. Shastri, 5. Sakuntala V. Shastri, wife of Vijay R. Shastri, 6. Suman A. Shastri, wife of Amresh R. Shastri, 7. Vijay R. Shastri, son of Late Rajmohan Prasad, All of Nadieyan and Satsang Nagar, PS Sherghati, District Gaya, at present Jineswar Dham, Flat No. 403/404, Cross Rokadia Lane, Boriwali (West), Mumbai. 8. Anita, wife of Dipak Sinha, M/s. Verma Medical Hal, Roja Road, Sasaram, District Sasaram – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. Ravi Ansh Kumar Sinha, son of Late Yaduvansh Prasad, Mohalla Karma Road, PS and District Aurangabad – Opp. parties. 2 25.11.2009 Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead the father of complainant as opposite party no.2. This application has been filed against the order, dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Trial No. 430/2009, arising out of Complaint Case No. 956/2004, by which the court below has refused to discharge the petitioners for the offences under sections 498A and 379 of the Penal Code. The ground taken by the court below is that the father of the complainant has supported the complaint case and as such prima facie case under section 498A of the Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. It would appear from the order sheet that the complainant has not come forward to support her case. The facts are that Complaint Case No.956/2004 was filed on 31.9.2004. A divorce case was also filed being Matrimonial Suit No. 37/2005/108/2006. The order, dated 22.1.2008 indicates that due to mal-adjustment the complainant left her husband’s house on 2 24.4.2004 and she does not wish to live with him. The order further indicates that both the parties have filed an application for dissolution of their marriage. Accordingly the court passed the decree dissolving the marriage. The complaint was lodged much earlier in time and thereafter the parties have compromised the matter and the marriage stands dissolved by judgment and decree passed in the matrimonial case. Mr. Raghva Nand, counsel appearing on behalf of complainant’s father has stated that his daughter has now been remarried and in no way is she interested in pursuing the present case. Considering that the parties have dissolved their differences and had agreed to divorce each other, no purpose would be served in continuing with the criminal proceeding as there would be no chance of conviction in such circumstances. This aspect of the matter has also been considered in the case of B.S. Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 where the Supreme court has also quashed the proceeding in somewhat similar circumstances. Considering the facts aforesaid the order, dated 4.9.2009 passed in Trial No. 430/2009, arising out of Complaint Case No.956/2004 stands quashed. This application is, thus, allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)