IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.34128 of 2007 PRADEEP KUMAR son of Sri Mahadeo Pandit Pandit, resident of Village- Tetariya, Post Office-Bara Simara, Police Station Lalamatiya, District- Godda (Jharkhand). . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sushma Devi wife of Sri Pradeep Kumar, daughter of Late Bhagwan Pandit, resident of Village- Tetariya, P. S. Lalamatiya, District- Godda (Jharkhand) at present Mohalla- Gandhi Nagar, Gautal Danapur, Post Office-Danapur Cantt. P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna. . . . . . . . . . Opposite Party. ----------- 7/ 12.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 17.01.2007 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Complaint Case no. 33 C of 2006. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that compromise has been arrived at between the parties on certain terms, which has been detailed in petition dated 13.10.2009 filed before this Court. It would appear from paragraph 3 of the petition that petitioner had agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/ per year to opposite party no.2 during her life time. It is further submitted that compromise has been filed in other cases also before the court. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court finds that continuance of the instant prosecution will not serve any purpose. As such, the order taking cognizance dated 17.01.2007 for the offence under Section 406, 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Complaint Case no. 33 C of 2006 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Danapur is quashed. In case, petitioner deviated from the terms of the - 2 - compromise, it will be open to the opposite party no.2 to take steps in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)