IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of matrimonial disputes with predominantly civil flavor, the High Court may quash criminal proceedings if the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak due to a settlement between the offender and the victim.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.718 of 2022 corresponding to Special POCSO Case No.20 of 2021 including the order dated 28.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Jamtara whereby and where under the learned Special Judge, Jamtara found prima facie case against the petitioners and the co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 498-A & 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 jointly draw the attention of this Court towards Interlocutory Application No.3025 of 2023 which is supported by the separate affidavits of the petitioners as well as the opposite party No.2 and submits that therein it has been mentioned that pursuant to the intervention of the common relatives and well-wishers of both the parties, the petitioners and opposite party No.2 have amicably settled their dispute and the opposite party No.2 has resumed her happy conjugal life with her husband namely Raju Mondal who is the son of both the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is the mother of Raju Mondal. It is next submitted that inadvertently the age of petitioner No.1 namely Rabindra Nath Mandal has been mentioned as 36 years in the cause-title of the instant Cr.M.P. though his date of birth is 19.01.1971 as is evident from the copy of the Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.1 kept at page-10 of the instant interlocutory application and similarly the age of the petitioner No.2 namely Renuka Mandal has wrongly been mentioned as 34 years though her date of birth is 01.01.1978 as mentioned in the copy of her Aadhar Card kept at page-13 of the brief. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the opposite party No.2 has resumed her conjugal life with her husband out of her free will, consequent upon a compromise and amicable settlement between them, hence, the continuation of this criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law as in view of the compromise, the complainant is not desirous of continuing this criminal proceeding against the petitioner, the chances of conviction of the petitioner is remote and bleak. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is basically a matrimonial dispute and no public policy is involved and the case is predominantly of civil flavour. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that because of some misunderstanding and marital discord, this case was instituted against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.718 of 2022 corresponding to Special POCSO Case No.20 of 2021 including the order dated 28.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Jamtara which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that in view of the compromise between the parties, the State has no serious objection for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.718 of 2022 corresponding to Special POCSO Case No.20 of 2021 including the order dated 28.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, Jamtara which is now pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara.

5. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur & Others vs. State of