- (1.) The applicants have filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur taking cognizance under Section 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station- Ram Chandra Mission , District- Shahjahanpur and issuing process against the applicants in Complaint Case No. 2147/2010.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case in brief as is necessary for the disposal of this application is that the Applicant No. 1 was married with the O.P. No.2 in the Month of June, 2006 as per rites and rituals of Hindu Marriage. It is alleged that the applicants, who are husband and husband's parents of the O.P. No. 2 were not satisfied with the gifts and dowry given at the time of the marriage. They further demanded Rs. 50,000/- in cash and a motor-cycle. However, the parents of the O.P. No. 2 could not satisfy their demand. On account of this reason the applicants allegedly tortured the O.P. No. 2 to coerce her and her relatives to satisfy their unlawful demand of dowry. The O.P. No. 2 was allegedly driven out of her matrimonial home for not satisfying the demand. In this regard a Panchayat was also convened and since the applicants remained firm on their demand of dowry and therefore, the dispute between the parties could not be solved in the Panchayat. Thereafter, the O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint against the applicants under Chapter XV of the Code that they tortured and harassed her to coerce her and her relatives to satisfy their unlawful demand of dowry. Learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, after having followed the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code was of the opinion that a sufficient ground for proceeding is made out and accordingly, issued process against the applicants under Section 204 of the Code vide order dated 18.4.2011, which is sought to be quashed by the applicants involving inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of the Code.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. The quintessence of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants is that this Court pursuant to submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and taking in view that it is a dispute mainly between the husband and wife, vide order dated 7.7.2011 referred the matter to the Mediation Centre of this Court for settlement of dispute between the parties. Both the parties appeared at the Mediation Centre. Fortunately, the Mediation succeeded. Husband and the wife amicably resolved their disputes and re-entered in nuptial bonds. The O.P. No. 2 has filed her counter affidavit on 9.7.2013 clearly disclosing therein that the applicants and O.P. No. 2 have amicably settled their disputes before Mediation Centre of this Court. Now, the O.P. No. 2 is living happily with her husband. It is also contended that now the O.P. No. 2 does not want to prosecute the case against the applicants and also agreed that the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2147 of 2010 (Smt. Anita Devi Vs. Ajay) be quashed.;