JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Lily Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. These criminal miscellaneous petitions have 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. In both the petitions cognizance order dated 03.06.2019 passed in Dhanwar P.S. Case No.84 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No.493 of 2019 have been challenged. Cr. M.P. No.991 of 2020 has been filed by the husband of the opposite party no.3. In Cr. M.P. No.524 of 2020 petitioners are father-in-law and mother-law. The case was lodge under Sections 498-A, 313, 420, 406, 417/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. It was alleged that on the basis of written report of the informant namely Md. Yakub Ansari to the Officer-in-Charge of Ghordhambha O.P., Dhanwar P.S. alleging therein that his daughter Anisha Khatoon married with the son of the petitioners in the year 2013 who only made physical relationship with his daughter and when she became pregnant, her husband administered medicine just to discharge the pregnancy for last six years.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in Cr. M.P. No.991 of 2020, I.A. No.242 of 2021 and in Cr. M.P. No.524 of 2020, I.A. No.240 of 2021 have been filed jointly on behalf of petitioners and wife-opposite party no.3 on compromise.

6. Mr. Shree Niwas Roy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that 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 v. State of Haryana reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675. Both the counsels have jointly submit that the this case is arising out of matrimonial dispute and there is no public interest in this matter and no adverse inference will fall in the society in quashing of the cognizance order. Para 3 of compromise petition is incorporated as under :-

3. That petitioner in this application along with co-accused namely Muneja Khatoon and Md. Kasim (father-in-law and mother in law) have settled their dispute outside of the court settlement for the following terms :

(a) O.P. No. 3 and petitioner (husband) will withdraw from their matrimonial life and they will obtain divorce from appropriate forum in which they will co-operate each other.

(b) That accused persons have already handed over two Demand Draft of Rs. Two lakhs vide DD no. 755374 and of Rs. One lakh and fifty thousand 755375 (total of three and half lakhs) to the O.P No. 3 as a full and final settlement.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in terms of compromise, the amount in question, has already been paid.

8. Mr. Roy accepts this position that amount in question has been received as compromise entered into between parties. He submits that in the case of B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in the complaint filed under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 of the I.P.C. quashed the F.I.R. for the ends of justice. Para 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow :-

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 v. L. Muniswamy,