IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.537 of 2010 1. SANJAY KUMAR @ MANNU 2. BHARAT PRASAD SRIVASTAVA 3. PADMAWATI DEVI 4. DEEPAK KUMAR 5. AKHILESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA @ DABLOO 6. NISHI DEVI AND 7. NILAM DEVI , ALL RESIDENTS OF HOUSE NO. 35, RAJENDRA PATH NORTH S.K.PURI, PATNA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. ANJANA, RESIDENT OF OLD PURULIA, AZAD NAGAR CHANKYAPURI, JAMSHEDPUR, AT PRESENT – H. NO. 35, RAJENDRA PATH, NORTH S.K.PURI, BORING ROAD, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR 4. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 5. THE CITY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE PATNA 7. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, S.K.PURI POLICE STATION 8. IO, S.K.PURI POLICE STATION 9. SRI R.P.YADAV, S.I. S.K.PURI, POLICE STATION 10. SRI S.KUMAR, ASI, S K PURI POLICE STATION ----------- 5. 27.07.2010. The petitioners have prayed for quashing FIR of Sri Krishna Puri Police station case no. 68 of 2010 dated 28.4.2010 lodged for offence under section 498A I.P.C. Opp party no.2, namely, Smt Anjana D/o Prof. J.N. Sinha in her F.I.R. stated that she was married to the petitioner in the year 2001. Soon after marriage her husband and her in-laws began to torture her, and as such she lodged a case under section 498A I.P.C. at Jharkhand. On the assurance of her husband, namely, the petitioner, she compromised the matter. The informant alleges that in the evening of 24.7.2010, her husband came in drunken state and again began to abuse and assault her. As such, she stated in the complaint that she wants to go to her sister’s place at Bokaro. A copy of FIR is annexed as annexure-1. The petitioner states that his wife suffers from mental depression. He swears to keep her with all care and affection. 2 The petitioner states that he has purchased a house in North S.K.Puri jointly in the name of his wife. He also purchased a car jointly in the name of his wife. He has provided her all possible regular treatment. He also submits that he would have no objection, if she takes to practice in the court itself. He submits that due to intervention of well wishers, the matter has been compromised and opposite party no.2 has filed a compromise petition. An affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.2 stating that both parties have overcome the differences and peace has prevailed. She further stated that she is residing with her husband along with their children. The Apex court in the case of B.S.Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 has held that even in some non compoundable cases, this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the criminal proceeding, F.I.R. or a complaint. The Apex court held that it is the bounden duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement in matrimonial cases, particularly one under section 498A I.P.C. The Apex court further observed that refusal of the court to quash the F.I.R., when the parties have compromised the case and there is no chance of conviction, the non-exercise of power of section 482 Cr.P.C. would go against very object of section 498A I.P.C. In the aforesaid case, the High court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the F.I.R., as the offence was non-compoundable. 3 In the instant case, soon after lodging of the F.I.R. both the husband and the wife has arrived at settlement and the wife has also filed a petition in this Court stating that they have overcome the dispute. In view of above, no fruitful purpose would be served in allowing such matrimonial dispute to continue when parties have compromised the matter and are living together. As such, this Court quashes criminal prosecution arising out of Sri Krishna Puri Police station case no. 68 of 2010 dated 28.4.2010 instituted under section 498A I.P.C. It would be open to opposite party no.2 to take resort to law in case she is subjected to torture. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)