The court emphasized the non-compoundable nature of certain offences, the limitations on allowing compromise, and the court's inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial cases to prevent abuse of the court's process and secure the ends of justice.

Indu Prabha Singh, J.

1. This is an application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 28-9-2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by which he had taken cognizance of the offences u/s. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the present petitioners.

2. The petitioners have contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna has taken cognizance in a mechanical way without considering the attending facts and circumstances of this case. The criminal case between the petitioners and the informant has ended in a compromise which was recorded by this Court in Cri. Misc. Nos. 721 of 2004 and 746 of 2004, both heard together and disposed of by a common order dated 10-9-2004 (Annexure-1). The compromise of the criminal case was recorded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in his judgment dated 11-10-2004 in Matrimonial Case No. 223 of 2003 (Annexure-3). In the said matrimonial case the informant had stated in her deposition that she has compromised the criminal case also as will appear from Annexure-4. This Court had directed for the withdrawal of the aforesaid criminal case as a result of which the informant had filed a withdrawal petition before the Police Officer (Annexure-5). The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Informant had undertaken before this Court that he would withdraw the criminal case filed against the petitioners.

3. The petitioners have further contended that the order taking cognizance of the offences against the present petitioners by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was wrong and the charge-sheet filed by the police was a wilful disobedience of the direction given by this Court in the aforesaid two miscellaneous cases. The petitioner No. 1 and the informant has obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent as will appear from Annexure-3. Both of them in their joint petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court now stated that they have agreed for the withdrawal of the criminal case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance by the impugned order on the basis of the police report without considering the relevant facts and has transferred the case to the Court of the S.D.J.M., Patna which has been numbered as TR. No. 3127/05. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the informant and petitioner No. 1 is her mother-in-law. The F.I.R. was filed by the informant before Budha Colony Police Station which has been forwarded to Kankarbagh police station and has been registered as Kankarbag P.S. Case No. 453 of 2003.

4. The petitioners had moved this Court for the grant of anticipatory ball vide Cr. Misc. Nos. 721 of 2004 and 746 of 2004. During the course of hearing in these two cases it was submitted before the learned single Judge that the Informant wanted to compromise all criminal and civil cases between the parties. Both the parties finally reached the terms of the compromise and have signed the compromise petition, In the order passed by the learned single Judge (S, K. Singh, J,) (Annexure-1) it has been observed that the learned Counsel for the informant had undertaken to file an application for the withdrawal of the criminal cases before the Court as also before the Police Officer, in the divorce suit also a joint petition (Annexure-2) was filed informing the Court that the Informant will withdraw her criminal case.

5. On 18-9-2004 the informant filed an application before the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna for withdrawal of Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. Case No. 453 of 2003 since the case was still in the stage of investigation. Petitioner No. 1 had also filed an application before the police. However, the police ignoring these applications has submitted a charge-sheet in the case in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the basis of which cognizance of the offence has been taken. From the aforesaid it would appear that a c