ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saket Khanna, learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

2. This criminal miscellaneous 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.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.11.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 124 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 3912 of 2018 whereby cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act was taken.

4. The informant-opposite party no. 2 filed the case by way of written complaint before the police stating therein that petitioner and his parents started torture her and demanded Rupees Fifty thousand. They were not allowing to meet her daughter. It has been alleged that she was not allowed to enter into the house and thereafter she lodged the present F.I.R. which was lodged under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act being Ratu P.S. Case No. 124 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No. 3912 of 2018.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the opposite party no. 2 jointly submit that now both the parties have compromised the matter as the matter was referred before JHALSA. They submit that the petitioner has preferred F.A. No. 114 of 2018 before this Court which was referred to JHALSA on 19.09.2019. Both the parties agreed to live separately to each other and present petitioner has paid Rs. 5,75,000/- as permanent alimony to the opposite party no. 2. Decree has been directed to prepare by judgment dated 07.01.2021 passed by the Division Bench. Para-6 of the judgment is quoted herein-below:

“6. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and having taken note of the settlement arrived at between the parties during pendency of this appeal, we do not find any purpose to enter into adjudication on merits. Mutual terms of the settlement have been complied on the part of the appellant and parties have filed joint compromise petition in the learned Court in Cr. M.P. No. 2227 of 2020. As such, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the settlement. Marriage between the parties is dissolved. Let a decree be prepared accordingly. Let the terms of the settlement form part of the decree. I.A. stands disposed of.”

6. It is well settled that in a matrimonial dispute if the parties have settled the dispute, the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may exercise its power for quashing of the entire proceeding. Reference in this regard in the case B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675. Para 13 to 15 of the judgment is quoted herein-below:

“13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclu