Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THESE criminal revision applications have been directed against the order dated 17/1/2013, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Manila P.S. Case No. 4/11 corresponding to G.R. No. 1636/11, whereby and whereunder the discharge petition filed by the petitioners under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
(2.) THE facts of the prosecutions' case is that the informant and petitioner's marriage was solemnized on 24.11.2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that the petitioner/Amit Adhikari along with his brother (Jagdish) and sister -in -law (Sanju Adhikari) started demanding Rs. 2 lacs and a car as dowry; that due to non -fulfillment of the demand they started torturing the informant. The informant left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home and the petitioners refused to keep the informant until their demand was not fulfilled and when the informant's father threatened to lodge a complaint the accused took her back. However they again tortured her and an attempt was made to burn her but she managed to escape. That the accused husband along with Surendra Singh @ Pappu Singh came and started assaulting her with an intention to outrage her modesty. On the basis of the report Manila P.S. case No. 4 of 2011 was registered and after completion of investigation Police submitted charge -sheet against accused namely Amit Adhikari, Jagdish Chandra Adhikari and Sanjay Adhikari under Section 498A/323/354/34 IPC accordingly cognizance was taken by the learned CJM, Ranchi. The petitioners filed a petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge on the ground that the case was lodge after more than one year of the occurrence. That accused Surendra Singh and Pappu Singh have not been charge -sheeted. That the informant and he husband were residing separately and petitioners Jagdish Chandra Adhikari and Sanju Rani Adhikari never resided with the informant and her husband i.e. petitioner Amit Adhikari. The learned Judicial Magistrate however on the basis of the case diary, rejected the petition for discharge. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parties have compromised the case and they have filed joint compromise petition, enclosed with I.A. No. 1988/2014 and LA. No. 2711/2014, as they have amicably settled their dispute, affidavits of the informant Mitali Adhikari and the petitioners are enclosed herewith. It has further been submitted that the G.R. Case No. 1636/11 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 4/11 may be quashed in view of the fact that parties have willingly compromised the case. The certified copy of the joint compromise petition filed by the informant in the court below regarding amicable settlement with the petitioners and her prayer to withdraw the case is Annexure -1.
(3.) IN support of his argument he has relied on the decision in the case of B.S. Joshi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana : (2003) 4 SCC, 675, and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has dwelt on the need to curb the abuse of process of court in matrimonial cases where the parties have agreed to settle their dispute amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts.;