IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44534 of 2006 MD. SHAKIL, sonof Md. Sayeed Ansari, resident of Mohalla – Miskot, P.S. – Town, District – East Champaran at Motihari. ------------ Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Nausba Bano, daughter of Md. Nayeem Ansari, resident of Mohalla – Bahadurpur,Ward No. 1, P.S. – Town, District – Samastipur. ---------- Opposite Parties. ------- For the petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Atul Chandra, APP. ****** 09. 07.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None turned up on behalf of opposite party no.2 inspite of service of notices issued from this court. This is an application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the order dated 25.08.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur in Misc. Case No. 82/1997 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Undisputedly, petitioner and opposite party no.2 were husband and wife due to some differences cropped up, two cases were initiated at the instance of the wife against the petitioner, they are Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 211/1997 under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Cr. Misc. No. 82/1997 under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which after constitution of family court at Samastipur transferred to the said court. The case under section 498A of the Indian Penal - 2 - Code appears quashed by order of this court dated 13.01.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 43167/2007 on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties through which divorce between the couple has already been affected on payment of all the dues and as it further appears one of the terms of the compromise was withdrawal of maintenance case pending before Family Court, Samastipur. Here, in the instant case, notices were issued several times and served upon opposite party no.2 but she has not entered into appearance though as appears from order dated 13.01.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 43167/2007 that she had appeared and on her behalf factum of compromise was not disputed. On the basis of the above, I find myself with the agreement submission made at the Bar that further proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or allied sections is nothing but abuse of the process of law and sheer wastage of precious judicial time. In view of the above, impugned order and further proceedings of Cr. Misc. No. 82/1997 and Execution Case No. 24 of 2009 is hereby quashed and this application is allowed. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)