The court emphasized that in cases where marital disputes are resolved through mutual consent and settlement, continuing criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the legal process.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

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

2. The present application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 08.09.2022 as passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Patna in Complaint Case No. 2450(C)/2022, whereby and whereunder the learned Court took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 498(A), 494 of the I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that informant/O.P. No. 2 was married to Satyendra Kumar on 6.7.2014 as per Hindu rites, in Indradanneshwar Mahadev Trust, Ashok Dham, Lakhisarai, where the parents of both sides were present. After marriage she went to Kolkata with her husband where her husband was working with Punjab National Bank. After marriage her husband started torturing her and demanding Rs.25,000,00/- from her parents for purchasing a Flat. It is alleged that on compulsion, her mother gave Rs. 1 Lakh in Bank Account and Rs.14,000,00/-in cash. When she came to know about the second marriage of her husband then her husband started torturing and ousted her from his house and, thereafter, lodged present Complaint Case No. 2450(C)/2022, before the learned C.J.M., Patna on 28.2.2022.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that marriage between the parties now stands dissolved under their mutual consent as provisioned under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and they also settled their maintenance by one time alimony and therefore, continuing criminal proceeding would only amount to abusing process of court of law.

5. Upon perusal of record, it appears that joint compromise between the parties made available to this Court, where parties appears amicably settled their issues against one time alimony of Rs. 10 lacs, which already paid to opposite party no. 2 in presence of learned counsel for the parties through bank demand draft no. 812860 dated 25.04.2025 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Old Court House Street, Kolkata, West Bengal-700001, in favour of opposite party no. 2, namely Ruchi Kumari, which is payable at SBI, Mokama, which has been duly received by opposite party no. 2 before this Court. During course of argument, learned counsel referred to agreement of one time settlement which executed at Patna High Court Campus on 23^rd day of April 2025, which is as under:-

“i) That complainant Ruchi Kumari First Party, and Satyendra Kumar Second Party have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage as husband and wife by filing joint petition in Matrimonial (Divorce) case no. 162/2019 pending in the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, filed by Satendra Kumar husband Second party.

ii) That the Second Party Satendra Kumar is paying one time parmanent alimony of Rs. Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lakhs) to First Party Smt. Ruchi Kumari through Bank Demad Draft no. 812860 dt. 25/04/25, drawan of Bank branch, S.B.I., Mokama, in name of Ruchi Kumari, First Party.

iii) That after the D.D. would be handed over to Ruchi Kumari in High court in court room itself at the time of accepting statement made in compromise. Ruchi Kumari First Party shall not claim any maintainance from Satendra Kumar Second Party in future after payment of one time alimony and hence Ruchi Kumari would take all steps for withdrawal of Maintainance case no. 57/2022 pending in the learned court of Principal Judge, family court Patna, filed by Ruchi Kumari against Satendra Kumar.

iv) That Second party Satender Kumar would withdraw the Pirbahore PS case no. 275/2025 dt. 06/04/2025 u/s 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 3(5) of BNS 2023 filed by him against Ruchi Kumari & ors.

v) That the complainant Ruchi Kumari would have no any further grievances with Satyendra Kumar with regards to any further maintainance after permanent alimony. vi) That after the present both the parties would have no any further greivances with each other in future.

vii) That both the parties are also restrained t