Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Sanket, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner with regard to Kurtha P.S. Case No. 41 of 2009 registered for offences punishable under Section 498A/380 of the Indian Penal Code and all consequential orders including the judgment dated 29.04.2015 passed in G.R. No. 495/09/TR No. 679/15 arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and other co-accused have been acquitted honorably.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage of the informant was solemnized with the petitioner on 07.06.2006 according to Hindu rites, wherein her father allegedly spent about Rs. 5 lakhs and gifted several articles including a Baleno Delta car. It is alleged that the parents of the petitioner had met her prior to the marriage and that after about two months of marriage, the petitioner along with his parents began subjecting her to abuse and made a further demand of Rs. 2 lakhs as remaining dowry. It is further alleged that in January 2007, due to persistent cruelty, she was sent to Patna to her fufa for treatment at PMCH, though thereafter, on intervention of family members, she accompanied the petitioner to Rawalbhatta where he was posted. It is alleged that the cruelty continued, and on 28.10.2008 she was again left at Gangapur and threatened that unless the demand of Rs. 2 lakhs was met, she would not be taken back to her matrimonial home.

4. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Sanket, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was convicted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in case of default of payment of fine, a further period of one month simple imprisonment and other co-accused have been acquitted honorably vide judgment dated 29.04.2015 passed in G.R. No. 495/09 / TR No. 679/15 arising out of Kurtha P.S. Case No. 41 of 2009. The petitioner had also filed a Matrimonial Case being Matrimonial Case No. 36 of 2008 (Re-registered as Matrimonial Case No. 119 of 2010) for dissolution of marriage under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The same was contested between the parties and was dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2016. Assailing the order dated 19.08.2016 passed in the Matrimonial Case, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1197 of 2016 before this Court, which was disposed of on 30.04.2024, wherein it has been recorded that the appellant (petitioner) and sole respondent (opposite party no.2) have entered into settlement during the course of the day and the agreement was placed on the record. The parties had agreed to dissolve their marriage on certain terms and conditions, as drawn on 30.04.2024 and the judgment dated 19.08.2016 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 36/2008 / 119/10 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jehanabad was set aside. Pursuant to the said order, the decree was passed on 30.04.2024 by this Court.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that once the parties have arrived to compromise and upon adjudication already a decree of dissolution has been passed by this Court, no purpose would be served, if the petitioner is allowed to face prosecution.

6. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel further giving emphasis submitted that in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court has to arrive to do complete justice and in support has relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635 [: 2021 (6) BLJ 299 (SC)], wherein he contended that in similar circumstances, the Apex Cou