ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.

Heard Mr. Rabi Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and Mr. M.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the State.

2. By way of the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’), the petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 25th January, 2010 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1152(C) of 2009, whereby, finding a prima facie case to be made out under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial.

3. In Complaint Case No. 1152(C) of 2009, the complainant has alleged that she was married to the petitioner no.2 Nitish Kumar on 11th July, 2008 at Chitranjan Park in New Delhi as per Hindu rites and customs and at the time of marriage her father had given costly gifts and ornaments to the accused persons and had spent Rs.8 lakhs in the marriage ceremony. After marriage, she went to Faridabad and started living there with her husband. However, the petitioners started demanding one Maruti Car and on failure to fulfill the said demand, she was being tortured in various ways. When her father tried to resolve the dispute through negotiation, he was also threatened and abused.

4. The complainant was examined on oath and in course of enquiry conducted under Section 202 of the CrPC, some witnesses were also examined on her behalf and, thereafter, vide order dated 25th January, 2010, cognizance of the offences under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was taken and the petitioners were summoned to face trial.

5. The aforesaid order dated 25th January, 2010 is under challenge in the present case.

6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as a matter of fact the petitioner no.2 being husband of the opposite party no.2 had also filed a matrimonial case in the court of District Judge, Faridabad under Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for declaring the marriage between the parties as null and void, which was transferred to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna by order of the Supreme Court.

7. It has been contended that due to intervention of common friends, relatives and well-wishers of both the parties, the matter has now been amicably settled and the parties have resolved to compromise all disputes between them and on that understanding a joint compromise petition for a decree of divorce was filed in the court of the learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Patna, where the matrimonial case between the parties was pending. In terms of the compromise, petitioner no.2 Nitish Kumar had already paid Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs) as permanent alimony to the complainant-opposite party no.2. The parties have also agreed that they would not proceed in any case against each other. Accordingly, in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties in Matrimonial Case No. 553 of 2010, the parties have also filed a joint compromise petition before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna for dropping Complaint Case No.1152(C) of 2009.

8. It has been contended that since the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not compoundable, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has not passed any order on the compromise petition filed by the parties in his court. It has been further contended that in view of the compromise between the parties, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending and the same would amount to an abuse of process of law.

9. Learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no.2 concedes that the parties have settled their differences outside the court and in terms of the compromise the complainant-opposite party no.2 has a