IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19704 of 2011 1. Chandeshwar Sinha son of late Mehilal Sinha resident of Urjagram Maurya Path, Khajpura, P.S. Rajiv Nagar, District Patna 2. Vijaya Lakshmi Sinha wife of Sri Chandeshwar Sinha, resident of Urjagram Path, Khajpura, P.S. Rajiv Nagar, District Patna. 3. Bharti kumari @ Bharti wife of Umesh Sinha resident of Prasadpur Chhabni Lane, P.S. Chhabni lane, District Gazipur (u.P) 4. Umesh Sinha, son of sri Sahdew singh resident of prasadpur chhabni lane, P.S. Chhabni Lane, District Gazipur (u.p) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mamta Kumari Mehata, D/o Laxmi Narayan Mehta, Wife of Vineet Kumar, resident of Hospital Road, P.S. Forbisganj, District Araria. with Cr.Misc. No.22287 of 2011 Vineet Kumar, son of Chandeshwar Sinha, resident of Urjagram Maurya Path, Khajpura, P.S. Rajiv Nagar, District – Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Mamta Kumari Mehata, D/o Laxmi Narayan Mehta, Wife of Vineet Kumar, resident of Hospital Road, P.S. Forbisganj, District Araria. ----------- 02. 04.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Opposite Party No. 2 and the State. Both the above applications have been filed for quashing the order dated 11th of May 2011, taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A, 341, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act in connection with Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 31 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 248 of 2010. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has appeared and filed Vakalatnama stating therein that the differences between the petitioners and the Opposite Party No. 2 have been resolved amicably and as such, application for divorce under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act vide Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 757 of 2010) has been filed vide Annexure -3 to the main application. It is further submitted that as per the terms of the above application for divorce, the case filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 against the petitioner has to be withdrawn and by way of alimony of Rupees Seven lacs is to be paid by the petitioner to the Opposite Party No. 2. The bank draft for the said amount has already been submitted alongwith the aforesaid application for divorce. However, the same would be payable to the Opposite Party No. 2, only when the case in question is compromised. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is amicably resolved and application for divorce on mutual consent as referred to the above has been filed, however, the decree of divorce as per the terms of compromise cannot be allowed unless criminal case at the instance of the petitioner is not withdrawn/compromised/compounded. The Opposite Party No. 2 is also not desirous of prosecuting the criminal case in question against the petitioners in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between them. Learned counsel for the State submits that since those offences are compoundable in nature and as such, if the cases are compromised or withdrawn by the Opposite Party No. 2, the State has no objection. Considering the submission of the parties and their respective pleadings, it appears that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and they have also filed application for grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent on certain terms as stated in the application for divorce vide Annexure- 3. As such, in the opinion of the court no useful purpose would be served by keeping the aforesaid case pending between the parties in the facts and circumstances of the case as referred to the above. Therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the aforesaid Forbesganj P.S. Case No. 31 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No. 249 of 2010 need not proceed further and the same is accordingly, quashed including the order dated 16th of May 2011, taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the petitioners. Both the above applications stand disposed of. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Forbisganj P.S. Case No. 31 of 2010 through fax on the cost being deposited by the petitioners. Jagdish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)