The duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the applicability of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in allowing the quashing of criminal proceedings in appropriate cases.

JUDGMENT :

Learned counsel Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha is present on behalf of the appellants and learned APP appearing for the State Mr. Bishambhar Shastri is present on behalf of the State. Today also nobody appears on behalf of the O.P. No.2.

2. Heard the parties.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that this Cr.M.P. has been filed to quash the order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 1 cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, in Complaint Case No. 522/2012 by which, the cognizance for the offences under Sections 498-A, 379 and 504 of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against all the accused persons/ petitioners and further prayer to set-aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the aforesaid complaint case No. 522 of 2012.

4. It has further been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, that it is a matrimonial dispute between the husband and the wife for causing cruelty and torture for want of fulfillment of demand of dowry, for which, a complaint case was filed by the opposite party No.2 Najra Khatoon vide complaint case No.522 of 2012, and after the enquiry vide order dated 6.09.2012, the learned court below took cognizance against all the accused petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 379 and 504 of IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, although it is strongly submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned order dated 06.09.2012 was not a speaking order and on the basis of the sweeping allegations by all the accused persons, learned court below found sufficient materials to proceed with the case and observed that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners.

5. Further it is pointed out that although the O.P. No.2 is not appearing before this Court on the last occasion and today also, but the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the wife O.P. No.2, which is available on record. It has been pointed out that the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife has been resolved and settled and now both the petitioner No.1 and complainant wife are living happily and harmoniously as husband and wife. It has further been pointed out that since the matter has been compromised and now the dispute has resolved by the intervention of well wishers and family members and it has been specifically stated by the O.P. No.2 wife in his counter affidavit that she has no grievance with the petitioner and did not want to pursue this case anymore, therefore in this view of the matter, it has been urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that let the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance be quashed. In this connection, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the Rulings as reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. Versus Babita Raghuvanshi and Anr.

6. On the other hand, learned APP Bishambhar Shastri appearing on behalf of the State submitted that in view of the counter affidavit filed by the wife, let the matter be disposed of in terms of the compromise and settlement and taking into consideration that it is a matrimonial dispute between the parties, which has been resolved.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case including the counter affidavit filed by the O.P. No.2 wife, which is available on record. It appears that admittedly it is a case of matrimonial dispute between the parties including the husband and his relatives at one hand and the wife – complainant on the other hand. Learned court below found the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 379 and 504 of IPC and under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against these petitioners including the husband – petitioner No.1 and passed the impugned order dated 6.9.2012. From the perusal of the