IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51693 of 2008 RAJIV KUMAR PANDEY @ BANTI, SON OF SRI SHYAM SUNDER PANDEY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA EKCHARI, BHOLSAR, P.S. EKCHARI, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. ---- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPPOSITE PARTY with Cr.Misc. No.50146 of 2008 RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF SHYAM SUNDER PANDEY, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA EKCHARI BHOLSAR, P.S. EKCHARI, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. NILLU PANDEY, WIFE OF RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, AT PRESENT RESIDE AT CHOW SHIKARPUR, P.S. CHOWK, DISTRICT PATNA ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 3 4.8.2010 Two quashing applications have been filed one on behalf of the husband, and the other on behalf of the husband’s younger brother, challenging the order by which cognizance was taken against the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 383 of 2007 by the S.D.J.M., Patna City under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the hearing of this case, the parties appeared before the court and submitted that they have been granted decree of divorce by a Court of competent jurisdiction vide Case No. 515 of 2008 which was compromised through intervention of the Lok Adalat. The matter having been compromised between the parties and both the parties having agreed to live separately through the Lok Adalat, it obviously means that the parties do not want to pursue the matter any further. It was stated in Court on behalf of the father of the petitioners as well as on behalf of Smt. Nillu Pandey that she does not wish to pursue the criminal case, in terms of the compromise reached between them before the Lok Adalat. 2 This Court finds that in such circumstances when the dispute is with respect to allegations made against two persons living together and if the parties thereto do not wish to live together and do not wish to pursue any cases which were pending between them, it is proper that the matter should end and the parties should not be allowed to face the rigor of a criminal trial. In the result, I quash the order of cognizance dated 3.1.2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 383 of 2007. Both the quashing applications are allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)