JUDGMENT :

SOURENDRA PANDEY, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application to quash the entire proceedings pending in connection with Madhubani Mahila P.S. Case No. 13 of 2014 dated 10.02.2014, GR No. 391/2014, TR No. 4045/2015, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani.

3. The facts giving rise to the present application is to the effect that the O.P. No. 2 filed a case before Madhubani Mahila Police Station alleging that she was married to petitioner no. 3, Durga Nand Jha on 17.06.2010. It has been alleged that initially the informant was kept well by her in-laws and her husband thereafter her in-laws and her husband started torturing her for non-fulfillment of dowry. It has further been alleged that petitioner no. 3, her husband left her at her village and since then she has been residing with her mother.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law and the husband of O.P. No. 2. It has been submitted that after investigation the police had submitted charge sheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It has been submitted that in the year 2017, the parties have entered into the compromise and the petitioners were granted bail and the O.P. No. 2 and the petitioner no. 3 re-started their conjugal life.

5. It has been submitted that the petitioners earlier moved for quashing of the FIR bearing Madhubani Mahila P.S. Case No. 13 of 2014 by filing Cr. Misc. No. 20668 of 2015 but the same stood dismissed by order dated 23.06.2015 and thereafter the petitioners again moved for quashing of the order taking cognizance but the same was also withdrawn to raise the issues at an appropriate stage.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the compromise petition, which has been brought as Annexure-P5, has stated that the petitioner no. 3 and the informant/O.P. No. 2 are living happily in Delhi and have three children. It has also been submitted that the deposition of the O.P. No. 2 was recorded in the trial on 30.07.2018, wherein she has categorically stated that she is residing with her husband and she is not willing to contest the case and she will not produce any further evidence in this case but despite the compromise and the said evidence on record the proceeding of the case before the learned Trial Court is still proceeding which amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that petitioner no. 1 is a retired personnel from CISF, while petitioner no. 3 is an employee in National Human Rights Commission in Delhi.

7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the present situation where the parties have resolved their differences by filing a compromise petition indicating therein that due to interference of well-wishers an amicable settlement has been reached between the parties and the informant has been residing and living a happy life with her husband and children for the last eight years, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and no useful purpose will be served to continue with the same.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 does not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioner no. 3 and the O.P. No. 2 are living happily as husband and wife along with their three children. It has also been submitted that the O.P. No. 2 is not interested in pursuing the criminal proceedings and from the perusal of the entire order-sheet, it would be evident that even the informant/O.P.