IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10152 of 2009 1. ANIL KUMAR SAH 2. RAMBABU SAH 3. SUNIL KUMAR SAH 4. ARUN SAH ALL SONS OF LATE JAGDISH SAH. 5. RAJIA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE JAGDISH SAH 6. ANITA DEVI, WIFE OF RAM BABU SAH ALL RESIDENT OF MAHNAR, TOLA BABU MOHALLA, WARD NO. 11, P.S.- MAHNAR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. 7. JAGARNATH SAH, SON OF LATE HARIHAR SAH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- MUROWATPUR, P.S. DESHRI, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RENU DEVI, WIFE OF SRI ANIL KUMAR SAH, DAUGHTER OF SRI KUMAR PRASAD SAH, SON OF LATE CHANDI SAH, RESIDENT OF SIMRI BAKHTIYARPUR, P.S. & DISTRICT- SAHARSA. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 4 4.9.2009 This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.7.2004 in Complaint Case No. 750(c) of 2004 under Sections 498 A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case was filed by Smt. Renu Devi wife of petitioner no. 1 making allegations that there was a demand of dowry. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted on 13.8.209 that a compromise petition was filed before the order of cognizance was taken in which it has been stated that the parties had compromised the matter and husband and wife were living together. Despite the compromise petition, the Court went ahead with the matter and took 2 cognizance in the case. When the matter came before this Court, this Court directed that the husband and wife and all other accused persons who are the brothers and sister-in-laws of the complainant should appear in person. Consequently, they all appeared on 1.9.2009. This Court spoke to the husband (petitioner no. 1), the complainant and also to the other petitioners i.e. the brothers of petitioner no. 1 and their wives in Chambers. It appears that there was a family dispute with respect to some property between the parties. From the statements made in presence of the counsel it also appears that there was a dispute because all the brothers and sister-in- laws were living together which created some sort of friction between them as a result of which the case was filed under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant has stated quite openly that she is living peacefully and happily with her husband at Kolkata and her husband is working in the railways as a waiter. She expressed her satisfaction and the family stated that she had 3 not complaint against her husband or any of the family members with respect to the allegation of demand of dowry or ill treatment by them. In a family dispute if matters can be settled without full fledged trial, it would be in the interest of justice and in the interest of the parties concerned that this Court should intervene and encourage the parties to enter into compromise. After hearing all the petitioners and the complainant, this Court comes to the conclusion that no dispute now exist between the complainant and the petitioners and it would be a futile effort to continue with this case. In the result this application is allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 21.7.2004 in Complaint Case No. 750(c) of 2004 is hereby quashed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)