IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in cases where the parties have settled their disputes amicably, particularly in matters of a civil nature arising from family disputes, to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.06.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, in connection with Motihari Mahila P.S. Case No. 23 of 2015, where cognizance was taken for the offences under sections 498A, 341, 323, 504, 506, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 06.04.2015 at 6.00 P.M. Najda Khatoon lodged an information with Motihari Mahila Police Station, stating that on 01.11.2007, her marriage was solemnized with Md. Samiuddin as per Islam religion. At the time of marriage and Bidai, cash of Rs. 1,50,000/-, ornaments with rupees 70,000/-and other articles worth rupees 1,50,000/-was given. After marriage, she came her matrimonial house. She gave birth of two female children, namely, Mariyam Khatoon, aged about five years and Aisha Khatoon, aged about three years. After giving birth to second female child, accused persons including petitioners started threatening to the informant that they would solemnize marriage of her husband with another lady. Her husband mother-in-law, father-in-law, two Nanads (sisters-in-law) and one Mobinul Haque under the conspiracy of each other, asked the informant to bring rupees Two Lacs from his father for the business of her husband and one motorcycle besides the furniture. On information, her mother sent one Almira to her matrimonial house and beg pardon for the rest amount. Thereafter her husband and family members of her husband started to torture her in different manner. They started to make a plan to burn her by poring acid. On 03.11.2014 her husband, mother-in-law and Nanad tried to kill her by pressing her neck. On raising alarm, people gathered and save her. On information, her brothers came to her matrimonial house. Her brothers gave an application to the Mahila Police Station, Gopalganj. The police came her matrimonial house and brought the accused persons to the police station. The police asked her husband to bring her to his house, otherwise he would be sent to jail. On 30.03.2015 her husband came to her Maike and assaulted her. He threatened to give divorce, if his demand could not be fulfilled.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that petitioners are in-laws of opposite party no. 2, against whom, the allegation of cruelty as alleged alongwith allegation of raising demand for dowry are appearing very much general and omnibus in nature. It is submitted that implication of petitioners appears only out of their relations. Learned counsel submitted that all petitioners being in-laws living separately with opposite party no. 2 and her husband, having no connection with their daily and domestic affairs. While concluding argument, it is submitted that the matter is ultimately compromised between the parties i.e. opposite party no. 2 with her husband and they are living happily together. Statement in this regard, averred specifically through counter affidavit dated 28.11.2023. While concluding the argument, it is submitted that as matter now stands compromised between the parties, continuing with the process would only amount to abusing process of law. Learned counsel relied upon a legal report of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2012(10) SCC 303 and also State of Haryanaand Ors.Vs. Bhajan Laland Ors., reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

5. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel Ms. Kanika appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, fairly submitted that matter now stands compromised between the opposite party no. 2 and her husband, namely, Md. Samiuddin, who is also one of the co-accused and they are living together.

6. It would be apposite to re-produce paragraph nos. 58 and 61 of the Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303, which reads as under:

“58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that th