ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State and Ms. Rath, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2.

2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners for quashing of the impugned order dated 15th January,
2022 passed in C.T. Case No. 1270 of 2018 and also the entire criminal proceeding corresponding to Binjharpur P.S. Case No. 298 of 2018 on the ground of compromise and amicable settlement reached at between the parties in the meantime.

3. A copy of the F.I.R. is at Annexure-1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been chargesheeted under Section 498-A IPC andother allied offences besides Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. A joint affidavit is filed by the parties on the compromise and settlement between them as at Annexure-3.

6. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a dispute with regard to the insurance money but the same
has been settled and on account of such compromise, which is supported by Anneuxre-3, the criminal proceeding pending before
the learned court below should be brought to an end and quashed inexercise of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction as no fruitful purpose would be served to continue with the same post-compromise and amicable settlement among the parties. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 supports the contention of the petitioners and she also refers to the joint affidavit i.e. Annexure-3.

7. Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State-opposite partyNo.1 opposed quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground
that some of the offences to be non-compoundable in nature and despite the fact that there is a compromise between the parties.

8. Gone through the contents of Anneuxre-3.

9. The Court on perusal of the said affidavit finds that the differences have been sorted out and the matter is settled amicably
between the petitioners and opposite party No.2, who is former’s daughter in-law. In the said affidavit, it is also stated that the parties agreed not to proceed with the criminal cases pending against each other. The terms and conditions of the agreement have been stated in the affidavit i.e. Anneuxre-3.

10. The petitioners as well as opposite party No.2 are physically present in Court today. The opposite party No.2 produced her
identity proof, such as, the original Aadhar Card for the Court’s perusal. On being asked, opposite party No.2 admits the fact of
compromise between her and the petitioners, namely, her parents-inlaw.

11. Having regard to the aforesaid development and the fact of amicable settlement between the parties which is supported by ajoint affidavit i.e. Annexure-3 and its confirmation by the opposite party No.2 who is physically present, the Court is of the view that no worthy purpose would be served to keep the criminal proceeding alive. In other words, the Court is of the humble opinion that since there is a settlement reached at between the parties, it would be a futile exercise to keep the criminal proceeding pending, rather, itshould be terminated in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

12. The Court is aware of the settled position of law laid down by the Apex Court in B.S.Joshi & Others Vrs. State of Haryana &
Another (2003) 4 SCC 675, wherein, it has been held that matter of this nature especially where the dispute is matrimonial or civil between the parties and in case of compromise should be brought to an end and terminated exercising jurisdiction Section 482 Cr.P.C. notwithstanding some of the offences to be not compoundable in nature. Therefore, the Court reiterates that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case where such jurisdiction should be exercised to quash the proceeding as has been prayed for by the parties.

13. Accordingly, it is ordered.

14. In the result, CRLMC stands allowed.

15. Consequently, the criminal proceeding in connection with C.T. Case