JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Awrind Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Arup Dey, the learned State counsel and Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing of the order dated 10.02.2016 taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 442/2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 4087/2013, pending in the court of learned J.M. 1st Class, Giridih.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case was registered under sections 498A/323/354A/34 of the I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that except sections 498A/354A of the I.P.C. and section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, all the other sections are compoundable. He further submits that now the O.P. No. 2 is residing with the family members and the petitioner no. 1 is the husband. He submits that in view of the compromise, one I.A. being joint compromise petition, has been filed which is numbered as I.A. No. 2546/2020.

5. Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the compromise is there and the I.A. has been filed on the affidavit of O.P. No. 2 as well as the pairvikar of the petitioners. Restitution of conjugal life has been stated in paragraph no. 6 of the I.A. petition.

6. Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the compromise has been taken place between the parties and this matter can be allowed in terms of judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675. Both the counsels have jointly submit that this case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and there is no public interest involved in this matter and no adverse inference will fall in the society in quashing of the cognizance order. Paragraph no. 3 to 6 of the compromise petition is incorporated as under:

“3. That O.P. No. 2 has compromised this case outside of the court with consultation and advice of their well wishers and common relative with mutual understanding and now there is cordial relationship has restored and good sense has been prevailed between the parties.

4. That there is no public policy involved in the present case as such dispute personal in nature as the dispute involved is of matrimonial/personal nature.

5. That the O.P. No. 2 does not want to proceed with the case since cordial relationship is prevailed between her and accused persons.

6. That O.P. No. 2 is living in the house of her Husband Dharmendra Rajak and their matrimonial/conjugal life has restored.”

7. He submits that in the case of B.S. Joshi (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the complaint filed under Sections 498A, 323, 406 of the IPC quashed the F.I.R. for the ends of justice. Paragraph Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15 of the judgment are quoted herein-below:

“8. It is, thus, clear that Madhu Limaye case does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of the Code or extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore, of the view that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power.

10. In State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy considering the scope of inherent power of quashing under Section 482, this Court held that i