IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22528 of 2004 Rita Devi, wife of Rajeev Kumar, resident of Village- Baroon, Police Station-Baroon, District-Aurangabad. ………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Punam Rai, daughter of Bindeshwar Rai, resident of Village-Sahariya, Police Station-Desri (Sahdei Bujurg), District-Vaishali. ……..Opposite Parties. For the petitioner :- Mr. A. K. Mishra, Advocate. For the Informant- O.P. No. 2 :- Mr. G. K. Shukla, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. --------- 7. 20. 08. 2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the informant and the State and also perused the record of Cr. Misc. No. 24020 of 2007, disposed of on 09. 07. 2009, by a Bench of this Court. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing the order dated 29. 06. 2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Desri P.S. Case No. 47/2002, taking cognizance for offence under Sections 323, 325, 307, 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Undisputedly, Opposite Party No. 2 filed the Complaint Case No. 490/2002 against four persons including the petitioner which are none else than husband, parents-in-law and married sister- in-law of the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2, wherein there is one single sentence in the complaint petition exclusively relating to 2 the petitioner "Waje ho ki abhiyukt sankha 4 apne pita (abhiyukt Sankha 2) ke Patelnagar sthit ghar par rahti hai ". All majority of other allegations levelled in the complaint petition are related with remaining accused persons. However, almost at the fag end some allegations relating to torture and assault etc. has been levelled involving all the four accused persons without stating any specific individual role played by the petitioner. On the basis of above complaint, Desri P.S. Case No. 47/2002 was instituted. After investigation, by impugned order, cognizance was taken against all four named accused persons including the petitioner. As said, apart from the instant case filed by the petitioner, remaining three accused persons challenged the impugned order separately by filing Cr. Misc. No. 22525/04 which was dismissed on 29. 06. 2004, but the present case was admitted for hearing and further proceeding with respect to the petitioner is stayed. Three accused persons after refusal of their prayer seeking quashing of order taking cognizance prayed before the Trial Court for their discharge which was refused by a detailed order giving rise of filing Cr. Misc. No. 24020/07, wherein Opposite Party No. 2 was noticed. She appeared and after hearing with consent of the parties the application was allowed vide order dated 09. 07. 2009, which reads as stated; " This quashing application is directed against the 3 order dated 27. 4. 2007 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-Cum-Fast Track Court No.5th,Hajipur. By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Both the parties have now no interest left in this case as the Court below has granted divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act to the parties. In the facts of the case, there is no reason why this criminal case should proceed when the parties have compromised and filed an application for consent decree of divorce. I, accordingly, quash the order dated 27.4.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 151/2005 arising out of Desri P.S. Case No. 47 of 2002. This application is allowed with the consent of the parties. " The instant case was taken up for hearing on 30. 07.2010, but on that day on the request of Opposite Party No. 2 record of Cr. Misc. No. 24020 of 2007 was called for, for perusal and now after hearing of the learned counsels as stated on perusal of the record aforementioned, this case is being disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the petitioner was married sister-in-law of the complainant-informant and there is nothing specific against her. 4 Moreover, taking into consideration mutual divorce of Opposite Party No. 2 with her husband has already taken place, nothing remains for consideration between the parties, earlier other accused persons against whom there were some specific allegation levelled, appears discharged by the order of this Court, so there is nothing for consideration in this case rather further proceeding before the court below if any, with respect to the petitioner shall serve no purpose apart from other technical laches. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 that earlier order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 24020 of 2007 was not with consent and that statement is an error, but at the same time, it is contended by the learned counsel that against the order passed, no step has been taken either before Superior Court or even before the Bench presiding over at the time of passing of order by filing an affidavit or making submissions. Learned counsel further tried to laid emphasis on certain portion of the order of the court below refusing discharge of other accused persons. So far order of the learned Sessions Judge refusing discharge of remaining three accused persons is concerned, that has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 09. 07. 2009, referred to above, so any portion thereof now can not be considered in the instant case. Since no step has been taken against the last line of the aforementioned order which reads as follows "this application is 5 allowed with the consent of the parties". There is nothing to show that said order not passed with the consent of the parties. In view of above, this becomes undisputed position that with the consent of the informant-Opposite Party No. 2, her husband and parents-in-law other named accused with the petitioner have already been exonerated from the case and now since there is nothing specific against the petitioner as stated earlier it would be futile exercise if the petitioner is directed to face trial or agitate before the court below for hearing discharge etc. Now further continuance of the proceeding with respect to the petitioner arising out of impugned order shall be nothing, but sheer wastage of precious judicial time which can not be permitted under law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29. 06. 2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Desri P.S. Case No. 47/2002 is hereby quashed and this application is allowed. m.p. ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)