The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of compromise between the parties and the specific charges against the accused in deciding to quash the criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel on behalf of the O.P. No.2 are present.

2. This Cr.M.P has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Boram P.S. Case No. 05/2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1120/2011 for the offence alleged under section 376, 313, 323, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Heard the parties

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that both the petitioners were amongst four named accused persons in connection with Boram P.S. Case No. 05 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.1120 of 2011 for the offence alleged under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant Kalawati Mahato, aged 28 years, stated in the FIR that she had been in love affair with the co-accused Prankrishan Mahato since 1999 when she was in class 10th. Thereafter it has been stated by the said informant that she got married with another boy but the said co-accused Prankrishan Mahato continued to express his intense love with her and finally she came back to live with him and under the pretext of marriage there was consensual physical relationship between both of them since last 13 to 14 years and thereafter, it has been alleged that the informant Kalawati Devi came to know that the said co-accused Prankrishan Mahato is going to marry with another girl, then this case has been instituted by the said Kalawati Mahato alleging therein that on the false pretext of solemnizing marriage the co-accused Prankrishan Mahato committed rape along with the allegations of other offences punishable under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 34 of IPC read with Sections 3/ 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act also making the accused petitioner No.1 Sadhucharan Mahato, who is the father of Prankrishan Mahato and petitioner No.2 Harekrishan Mahato who is brother of Prankrishan Mahato. It has been submitted that these two persons are father and brother of the main accused, Prankrishna Mahato and they have no role to play in the commission of offence and they have been alleged with sweeping allegations as set out in the FIR. There is no question of any demand of dowry under Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act because there had been no any negotiation of the marriage between the accused Prankrishna Mahato and the informant Kalawati Devi, in view of the admitted fact of the prosecution that the informant Kalawati Devi was 28 years old married woman with one Buddhu Mahato and she had been in love with the co-accused Prankrishna Mahato and she came back voluntarily and willingly to live with the co-accused Prankrishna Mahato from her matrimonial home.

6. Further, it has been pointed out that one I.A. No.1277 of 2011 was filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the FIR in connection with Boram P.S. Case No. 05 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.1120 of 2011, which is still pending. Further it has been pointed out that one another I.A. No.2736 of 2020 has been filed, which is a joint compromise petition between the informant Kalawati Mahato and petitioner No.1 Sadhucharan Mahato.

7. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submitted that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner No.1 and the informant Kalawati Mahato and due to misunderstanding, this case was instituted as evident from the contents of joint compromise petition filed vide the I.A. No.2736 of 2020. It has also been pointed out in the said I.A. that the main grievance was, with the son the petitioner No.1, who has not been marrying with her and therefore this case was instituted against him. It has further been stated in the I.A. that the informant has now been living with the son of the petitioner No.1 Prankrishna Mahato, who had solemnized the marriage w