IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50622 of 2006 1.AMIR @ MD. AMIR ANSARI son of Md.Abdul Kalam Ansari 2.Md.Abdul Kalam Ansari son of Isha Ansari 3.Jainab Khatton wife of Md. Abul Kalam Ansari 4.Arshad son of Abul Kalam Ansari 5.Washi Akhtar son of Md.Isha Ansari All residents of village-Laxmipur, P.S.-Chiraiya, Dist.-East Champaran. Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Asgari Khatton daughter of Abdul Ghanni, resident of village-Deephi, P.S.Chiraiya, Dist.-East Champaran. ----------- 4. 17.3.2010. Heard Mr.Alok Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 7.12.2005 passed in Complaint Case No.392C of 2005 whereby the court below had taken cognizance of the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the present case compromise between the petitioners the complainant/opposite party no.2 has already arrived at. Learned counsel has also referred to annexure-2A of the petition, which is a photo copy of the deposition of opposite party no.2, wherein she had admitted that with the consent of both the parties divorce has already been taken place and opposite party no.2 had already been compensated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 does not dispute the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He also submits that compromise has already taken 2 place. Since both the parties have already compromised and there is no grievance to opposite party no.2, it would not be proper to compel the petitioners to participate in the proceeding before the court below. It is true that the offence under section 498A is not a compoundable offence, however, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2003(4) SCC 675 (B.S.Joshi Vs. State of Haryana), it is desirable to pass an order so that proceeding before the court below may come to an end. Moreover, in such a situation, where the opposite party herself is not willing to pursue her complaint petition, allowing the proceeding to proceed further will amount to allowing the abuse of the process of the court and, as such, it would be proper to quash the order of cognizance and the proceeding in Complaint Case No.392C of 2005. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of cognizance is set aside. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)