IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43886 of 2007 1. SANJAY KUMAR 2. Most. Dropadi Rani @ Dropti 3. Sudeh Goyal 4. Sarbesh Kumar Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. 2. Dipti Kumari ----------- 3. 12.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for Opposite party no. 2. The petitioners, who are the husband and his family members seek quashing of the order dated 28.3.2006 taking cognizance under Section 498 A, 379, 386 of the Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Complaint case No. 1782 of 2005. Learned counsel submits that the husband also filed a case for divorce being Case No. 181 of 2005. Ex parte decree of divorce has been passed on 14.3.2007 when the complainant failed to appear despite notice. That the complainant had voluntarily agreed to peacefully part ways with the husband and for which an agreement was signed on 23.6.2005 in the form of an affidavit affirmed before the Notary Public. Counsel for Opposite party no. 2 urged that the alleged agreement dated 23.6.2005 was an coercive document obtained under threat and within a week thereafter after making necessary arrangements, present complaint has been filed making the allegations with regard to obtaining of forcible signature on the alleged compromise. In so far as ex parte decree for divorce is 2 concerned, it is submitted that the complainant has filed an application for recalling the ex parte decree. Once the fact of a compromise between the parties with respect to parting of ways becomes difficult to decide conclusively at this stage the jurisdiction of this Court on that ground gets limited under Section 482 Cr.P.C., when the allegations are fit to go to trial for decision. A subsequent ex parte divorce cannot bring any relief to the petitioners as the allegations relate to a period prior to the divorce when matrimonial relationship subsisted. The issues of a compromise between the parties, the grounds of divorce are matters to be more appropriately seen in the trial itself. In that view of the matter, this Court finds it difficult to grant any relief to the petitioner. The application is dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)