IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49968 of 2007 1. RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA 2. Mukesh Kumar Gupta 3. Rakesh Kumar Gupta 4. Mamta Kumari All sons and daughter of Bharat Prasad Gupta 5. Dhneshwari Devi w/o Bharat Prasad Gupta 6. Bharat Prasad Gupta All residents of village Bettiah town Hara Chowk, P. S. Bettiah, District East Champaran, Bettiah. … petitioners. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rimjim Devi d/o Laxmi Sah resident of Mohalla Court Bazar Ward No. 7 P. S. Sitamarhi District- Sitamarhi. .. Opposite parties. ----------- 3. 30.03.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. Opposite party no. 2 despite service of notice has not appeared. Counsel for the petitioners while assailing the FIR filed by opposite party no. 2 has taken a plea that some sort of permanent arrangement has already been made with opposite party no. 2 by paying substantial amount to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- and that an application of petitioner no. 1, the husband for his mutual divorce with the wife opposite party no. 2 in terms of Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act is also pending before the competent 2 court. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the circumstances, the present First Information Report filed by opposite party no. 2 arising out of matrimonial dispute must be held to be malicious prosecution against the petitioners, all of whom are family members of husband petitioner no. 1. In the opinion of this Court the scope of quashing of the first information report stands well settled and therefore if the contents of first information report do contain the ingredients for constituting the offence alleged therein, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot quash the first information report. True it is, petitioners have already entered into some sort of compromise and the offence under Section 498 A is also compoundable but then that stage has yet to be arrive inasmuch as learned counsel for the petitioners himself says that the police is still in the process of conducting its investigation. In the aforementioned circumstances, the prayer for quashing the first information report keeping in view the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. vs. J. A. C. Saldanna & Ors. reported in 3 AIR 1980 SCC 326, must be and is hereby rejected. Rejection of such prayer of the petitioners would not, however, stand in their way to get the matter settled out of Court even in respect of aforementioned criminal case. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)