The Court emphasized that if parties amicably resolve their disputes, ongoing criminal proceedings should be quashed to prevent abuse of legal 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 02.01.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaya, in Complaint Case No. C-1741 of 2022 instituted under Sections 4 98(A), 120(B), 406, 468, 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE & Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against petitioners and another. After examination of complainant on his Solemn Affirmation (SA) and also his enquiry witnesses, the learned trial court took cognizance against the petitioners & another under Sections 4 98(A), 406, 468, 471 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE & Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act through impugned order dated 02.01.2023.

3. As per complaint, opposite party no. 2 was married with one Mukund Saroj, who is the son of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2, on 22.11.2019 according to Hindu Rites. Prior to marriage her parents were called by the accused persons in May 2019 & her marriage was finalized, during which her father-in-law (Petitioner no. 1) demanded two flats as dowry. On 08.07.2019, ring ceremony was held at Bengaluru, in which accused persons demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- & the same was transferred in the account of accused No. 2, hotel bill of Rs. 66,000/- & Rs. 43,600/- was also paid by the father of Opposite- Party No. 2, because the accused persons took the plea that their ATM Card was left at home. It is further alleged that prior to marriage the accused persons had also extracted money from her father on false pretext & the amount was transferred to the account of accused No. 1 from her father’s account. Accused persons had also extracted money from her father on one or another false pretext and in furtherance thereof certain amount was also transferred to the account of accused no. 1 from her father’s account.

4. Notice served upon opposite party no. 2 and she was duly represented.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that dispute between the parties now stands compromised, whereafter through bank demand draft, Rs. 4 lacs was paid to opposite party no. 2/wife. It is submitted that in furtherance of compromise, opposite party no. 2/wife, withdraw her maintenance case as lodged under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “Cr.P.C.) and a petition of compromise was also filed in present criminal case before the learned trial court. It is submitted that both parties decided to dissolve their marriage amicable and for said purpose a petition under Section 13B of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1956 was also preferred before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya, as to dissolve their marriage.

6. It is submitted that petitioners are in-laws and in view of compromise now continuing present proceeding before the court below would only amount to abuse the process of law.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported through Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 .

8. Learned counsel Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh while arguing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 approved the factum of compromise as submitted above by learned counsel appearing for petitioners and did not objected the present quashing petition.

9. It would be apposite to reproduce relevant Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 of Abhishek Case (supra), which reads as under:-

“12. The contours of the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well defined. In V. Ravi Kumar v. State Represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem , (2019) 14 SCC 568 , this Court affirmed that where an accused seeks quashing of the FIR, invoking the inherent jurisdi