The main legal point established is that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction to quash proceedings if the cause of action arises within its territory, and it should encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying that F.I.R. pertaining to Hathauri P.S. Case No. 27/2007, dated 2.7.2007 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is now pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera in the district of Samastipur (Bihar) may be quashed.

3. Office has raised objection with respect to territorial jurisdiction of this Court because of the reason that F.I.R. was lodged in territorial jurisdiction of State of Bihar i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court and criminal case in pursuance of F.I.R. as P.S. Case No. 27/2007 is also pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera in the district of Samastipur (Bihar) falling within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Bihar.

4. Before proceeding to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction, it will be appropriate to give the background facts of the case leading to filing of this writ petition and reaching to Division Bench of this Court.

5. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.3 are the husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 29.06.2001 at village Arga, P.S. Biroul, District Darbhanga (Bihar). The said marriage ultimately turned to be not a happy marriage and, therefore, the petitioner no.1 filed a matrimonial suit no. 99 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi with the allegation that after marriage the respondent-wife came with the petitioner no.1 to his village at Samstipur and remained there for one week. A daughter was born in march, 2002 out of the said matrimonial wedlock. The respondent was brought to the petitioner's parents house at Ranchi in December, 2002 where she remained from 18.12.2002 to 17.01.2003. Thereafter, allegation of misbehaviour and cruelty were levelled against the respondent-wife with further allegation of her suffering from schizophrenia since before the marriage. In the said divorce petition, the respondent-wife appeared and filed the written statement and ultimately, after trial, the trial Court decreed the divorce suit on 14th September, 2009. The divorce decree was granted on the ground of cruelty and allegation of mental disorder was rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court while granting the decree for divorce awarded the permanent alimony under Section 25 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 of Rs. 3 lakhs to the respondent-wife. Being aggrieved against the part of the decree i.e., grant of permanent alimony to the respondent of Rs. 3 lakhs in the impugned judgment and decree, the petitioner no.1 preferred the First Appeal No. 199 of 2009. The respondent-wife also preferred another First Appeal No. 183 of 2010 to challenge the divorce decree. Both the appeals have already been admitted. When matter came up for consideration before this Court, this Court directed the parties to appear before the Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi (JHALSA) and the matter was taken up by the conciliator for consideration for arriving at a settlement between the parties. Before the conciliator, both the parties appeared in person and submitted separate written settlement applications on 16.07.2012 and the conciliator, JHALSA, Ranchi submitted the result of the conciliation between the petitioner no.1 and respondent-wife to this Court in above First Appeal Nos. 199 of 2009 and 183 of 2010 on 17.07.2012. It appears from the conciliator's report that the matter has been settled between the parties and it was agreed by both the parties that petitioner no.1 will make payment of Rs. 5 lacs against permanent alimony to respondent-wife and the first installment of that amount, amounting to Rs. one lac will be paid by the petitioner in the form of bank draft on 20.07.2012 before this Court. It was also agreed that second install