The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Katras P.S. Case No. 120 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 1347 of 2009 including the order impugned dated 19.8.2009 by which cognizance of the offence was taken by the. CJ.M., Dhanbad under Sections 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.

2. The prosecution story in short was that the informant-opposite party No. 2 presented a written report before Katras Police on 9.5.2009 narrating that she was married to the petitioner No. 1 Rakesh Kumar Sarkar on 9.3.2008 and her father had given presentation on the eve of her marriage according to his capacity. But soon after marriage, her in-laws as well as husband started demanding Rs. 3 lakhs in cash and an Alto Car. When she requested that she might be permitted to live peacefully, her mother-in-law Madhuri Sarkar and sister-in-law Soma Roy did not listen and had been extending torture by stopping her food and dragging her on the floor by holding her hair. She further narrated that whenever she used to narrate her misery to her husband, he also used to assault by taking side of his mother and sister. Her father-in-law was retired employee of BCCL who extended deaf ears to the abuses hurled to her and used to ask her to bring money from her mother, failing to which she would suffer similar way. Her father was a retired bank employee but the accused persons had been demanding an Alto Car and Rs. 3 lakhs in cash out of the benefits he received after his superannuation. Her life was made miserable and for that reason she lost the desire to survive, at the same time she was apprehensive that she might be killed at the hands of the accused persons. Ultimately she was driven out from her matrimonial home by the petitioners on 9.5.2009 after assaulting her. The police case was instituted on 9.5.2009 itself on the presentation of written report by the informant.

3. A notice was sent to the informant-opposite party No. 2 Dalia Das who appeared in this petition through her counsel and filed counter affidavit stating that all the disputes between her and the petitioners have come to an end and she had no longer grievance against them, since she already received permanent alimony of Rs. 3 lakhs from the petitioner no. 1 and subsequent thereto she and the petitioner No. 1 Rakesh Kumar Sarkar have taken divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act by their mutual consent and in that manner they have severed relationship once for all. The deponent-O.P. No.2 with reference to paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit stated that she did not want to proceed with unnecessary litigation against the petitioner No. 1 and others as it would be counter productive to her own interest in view of the fact that the dispute has already been settled between the parties and hence she was no more willing to proceed against the petitioners as her grievances had been redressed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 relied on the decision reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675. The Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another settled the object in which matrimonial dispute was made under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and observed the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlement in matrimonial disputes and that any hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against the interest of the women and against the object for which the provision of law under Section 498A IPC was enacted.

5. The Apex Court further added which reads as under:-

"On facts, it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed, now she has f