IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9186 of 2008 SMT.BHAWANA MISHRA, D/O SHRI MADHAVENDRA TIWARY, W/O SHRI RAJESH MISHRA, R/O 302 CHANDAN MAHAL, OPP. RAMGARH HOUSE, RUKANPURA, BAILY ROAD, P.S. DANAPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. --PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, BHAGAWAN BAZAR POLICE STATION, CHAPRA, (SARAN). --OPP.PARTY _______ For the Petitioner : M/s Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv. Awnish Kr. Pandey For the State : Mrs. Veena Kumari Jaiswal, APP. 3 07 .05.2010 This is an application seeking quashing of the first information report including the entire criminal investigation arising out of Chapra Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case no. 161 of 2006 under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act or in the alternative to direct the opposite party no.2, the Officer in Charge of Police Station concerned to withdraw the case. The relevant fact of this case is that the petitioner Smt. Bhawana Mishra, a married lady, whose marriage was performed on 23rd January, 1999, within two 2 years whereof, she became mother of two children, lodged an application before the Police Station concerned alleging ill treatment, demand of dowry etc. against her husband and other in-laws which, according to her, was further enhanced after marriage of her Dewar and Nanad and lastly in July, 2006, when her sister and brother came to meet her, she was brutally assaulted. On such application case was instituted and investigation started. Subsequently, it appears that one petition on behalf of the informant was filed on 21st January, 2008 stating that everything has been settled and she has been leading happy married life and did not want to proceed further with the case. Prayer was made to keep this application with the record and copy be sent to Police Station concerned. The petition appears bearing no signature of the informant though singed by one lawyer and, thereafter, another hand written petition appears to have been filed under signature of the informant stating that the case was instituted under some confusion and by virtue of innocence so the application dated 16th August, 2006 forming basis of the case be ignored and case be closed so that no adverse effect be drawn on her 3 marital life. It further appears that the two petitions were either not placed before the court concerned or no order was passed thereon as it appears that the entire application lax mentioning of any action taken by the court below or even placing the petition before the court seeking its indulgence or any appropriate order. The present application has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance upon decision of this Court in a case of Keshav Jayant Tiwary V. State of Bihar; 2005(3) PLJR 300, and decision of the Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others V. State of Haryana; 2003 Cr.L.J. 2028, submitted that there is no occasion to continue this case before the trial court and the entire prosecution and investigation deserves to be quashed. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. There is no disagreement with the above proposition as propounded by the Apex Court. In the case aforementioned the court below was not ready to get the case disposed of since it was not compoundable but here in the instant case, as stated earlier, 4 the application though filed by the informant is that a prayer to keep with the record and another with an evasive prayer but it is not clear whether, at any point of time, attention of the court in seisin was drawn towards such application. Taking into consideration all such aspects it seems desirable that at the initial stage the application must be placed before the Court in seisin to seek appropriate order from it and if on any ground the prayer is not accepted inspite of the latest position of the law, it can be appreciated if the aggrieved person invoke the jurisdiction of this court. Taking into consideration, the petitioner is directed to appear before the court below, press her application, if asked get her statement recorded and if she supports the factum of compromise and good relationship with her in-laws the court below shall pass appropriate order. With the observations made above, with this liberty and direction, this application stands disposed of. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad