Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. The present application has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the cognizance order dated 23.11.2023 as passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 14/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 376, 379 and 34 of the I.P.C. and ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that informant/O.P. No. 2, namely Indu Kumari Singh was married with Chandan Kumar, son of petitioners as per Hindu rites and ritual and after marriage she joined her matrimonial home, where she lived for only 10 days. Thereafter, she was tortured by petitioners in connection with demand of dowry raised for Rs. 5 lacs and one four wheeler vehicle. She further alleged that after some days, she came to know that her husband Chandan Kumar has illicit relation with one Nilam Roy and when she told about this fact to her in-laws, they were adamant to perform marriage of her husband with said girl and told that her marriage will be performed with their second son namely, Kunal Kumar. On 10.11.2021 when her husband Chandan Kumar had gone to Kurji, Danapur, on the same night Kunal Kumar (brother-in-law) made physical relation with her without her consent and when she pressurised him for marriage, then the petitioners and other co-accused persons ousted her from matrimonial home after physical assault. She further alleged that she alongwith her brother came back to her matrimonial home on 13.03.2022 and while returning so, her in-laws assaulted them bruttaly.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that petitioners are in-laws and they are facing very general and omnibus allegation qua alleged cruelty as committed upon opposite party no. 2. It is submitted that as a matter of subsequent development, the dispute and differences of opposite party no. 2 was compromised with her husband, namely Chandan Kumar and thereafter she is living happily with him since last more than one year. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid development, continuing of present proceedings would only amount to abuse of process of court of law and, therefore, cognizance order qua petitioners be set aside/quashed. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as passed in the matter of Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1083 [: 2023 (5) BLJ 289 (SC)].

5. Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned senior counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 submitted that the allegation of cruelty as per FIR is also available against petitioners. It is submitted that in fact these petitioners were responsible for the initiation of entire events. However, the factum of compromise as submitted above by learned counsel appearing for petitioners could not disputed by Mr. Ojha appearing for opposite party no. 2. In support of his submission, Mr. Ojha relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511.

6. It would be apposite to reproduce para-13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Abhishek’s case (supra) which are as under:—

“13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam vs. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibu