Compromise between parties in marital disputes can result in quashing of criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need to avoid abuse of the judicial process.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

1.Heard Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Jagdhar Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State and Mr. Shaishav Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No.2.

2. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of the order dated 16.08.2022 as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No.2047(C) of 2021, whereby the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 325, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short ‘D.P. Act’) and issued summons against the petitioners to face trial.

3. As per the case of the complainant/O.P. No.2 filed before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 08.06.2021, it appears that she got married on 16.02.2020 according to Hindu Rites and Customs with petitioner no.1. After sometime, the complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty in her matrimonial home due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry as raised further by petitioners for cash of Rs.5 lakhs and also a piece of land situated at Bihta, Patna. Finally, the complainant/O.P. No.2 was ousted from her matrimonial home on 18.02.2021. It was also alleged that on 04.04.2021, petitioner No.1 pushed the complainant/O.P. No.2 from the third floor, which was an attempt for her murder, where she survived, but received fracture in both her legs.

4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, after considering the statement of complainant on oath and other enquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Patna took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 325, 506 of the I.P.C. as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners without taking any shelter of merit available for petitioners straightway submitted that the matter between the parties stands compromised for which a joint compromise petition was filed before this Court on joint affidavit dated 22.04.2025. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner no.2 is father-in-law facing general and omnibus allegation qua alleged cruelty as said to be committed upon O.P. No.2. It is further submitted that offence under Section 325 IPC is compoundable in nature with the person on whom hurt is caused. It is pointed out by Mr. Singh that in view of compromise, continuing with criminal proceedings between the parties before the courts below would only amount to abuse of the process of Court and, therefore, same be quashed/set aside to secure the end of justice. In support of his submission, Mr. Singh has relied upon the legal reports of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083

6. Mr. Shaishav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 also affirmed the factum of compromise between the parties as submitted above by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is submitted that he has no objection that in view of compromise all pending cases between the parties also be quashed while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. Same has also not been objected by learned counsel appearing for petitioners in view of compromise.

7. It would be apposite to reproduce the joint compromise dated 22.04.2025 as filed before this Court on affidavit, the same is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:-

“Both the parties have amicably and mutually agreed upon to settle all claims, counter claims a