CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.36995 OF 2004 ******* In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* 1. RAM BABU PRASAD, SON OF RAGHUNATH SAH, R/O B.K. DUTTA LANE, NEW JAKKANPUR, P.S. JAKKANPUR, PATNA-1, DISTRICT-PATNA. 2. DR. AJIT MOHAN, SON OF RAM BABU PRASAD, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF C/O RAM BABU PRASAD B.K. DUTTA LANE, NEW JAKKANPUR, P.S. JAKKANPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA. ------------------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMJI PRASAD GUPTA, SON OF JAMUNA PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-CHHEGAN NEURA, P.S. MEENAPUR, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR, AT PRESENT-ADARSH COLONY, KALAMBAGH ROAD, P.S. KAZIMOHAMMADPUR DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. --------------- OPPOSITE PARTY ******* For the Petitioners : M/s Birendra Kumar Sinha & Manish Kumar For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Abinash Kumar For the State : Mr. Damodar Pd. Tiwary, APP ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard Sri Birendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Damodar Pd. Tiwary, learned Additional Public 2 Prosecutor for the State and Sri Abinash Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 11.11.2004 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, (East), Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case no. 1547 of 2009 taking cognizance for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It is submitted that the Complaint Case no. 1547 of 2004 filed by Opposite Party no.2 as father of Anupam Gupta, who was married with petitioner no.2, Dr. Ajit Mohan. Simultaneously, Matrimonial case was filed by petitioner no.2 initially seeking restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, Anupam Gupta but subsequently got it converted into an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also contended by the petitioners that the parties settled their dispute and the marriage between petitioner no.2 and Anupam Gupta was dissolved vide judgment dated 25.12.2008 passed in Matrimonial Case no. 84 of 2008. 3 4. In face of the above, it is contended that now further proceedings of the court below, if permitted to continue, shall produce no fruitful result. My attention was further drawn towards decision of the Apex Court in a case of B.S. Joshi and Others V. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances, and finding that if the proceedings before the court below is permitted to continue, it shall produce no result but sheer wastage of precious judicial time. In that view of the matter, proceeding before the courts below and the impugned order are quashed and this application stands allowed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) Patna High Court, The 13th August, 2010, AAhmad/(NAFR).