IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.53163 of 2007 HASIB SIDDIQUE, Son of Late Md. Irfan, Resident of Village- Jabar, P.S. Baisi (Dagaruwa), District- Purnia. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shahina Naz, Wife of Hasib Siddique (Advocate), D/o Md. Shahabuddin, Resident of Village Jabar (West Tola), P.S. Baisi, District- Purnia. At present residing at Korbla Tola, P.S. Bisi (Dagaruwa), District- Purnia. . . . . . Opposite Parties. ----------- 3/ 01.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 05.01.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Purnia in Cr. Revision No. 375 of 2006 whereby he dismissed the revision preferred against the order dated 19.05.2006 taking cognizance for the offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Opposite party no.2 Shahina Naz filed a complaint under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against husband and other family members. However, cognizance has been taken against the husband. Learned counsel submits that due to intervention of family members and good feeling arising between the parties, they have compromised the matter and do not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit annexing a copy of the compromise petition, which has been filed in the Court below, which bears the signature of both the parties i.e. complainant as well as the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in case of B. S. Joshi & Ors. Vs State of Haryana and another reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 this Court can pass order - 2 - quashing a proceeding under Section 498 A of the I.P.C. in the larger interest of the well being of both the parties. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute that a compromise had arrived at between the parties. In such circumstances, I do not find that any useful purpose will be served allowing the proceeding to be continued, as such the impugned order taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint case no. 392 of 2006 pending before the S.DJ.M., Purnia is hereby quashed. This application is, accordingly, allowed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J).