Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party No. 2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that initially this case was filed for quashing of the order dated 29.2.2012 passed in Complaint Case bearing C.P. Case No. 669 of 2011 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Ss. 498 -A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners. Now the order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the parties got their matrimonial dispute resolved and thereby, they have entered into a compromise and a joint compromise petition to this effect has also been filed.
(2.) It appears that a complaint case bearing C.P. Case No. 669 of 2011 was filed wherein, it was alleged that the accused persons subjected the complainant to cruelty on account of non -fulfillment of the demand of dowry. On such complaint, cognizance of the offences punishable under Ss. 498 -A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.
(3.) Now the parties have resolved their matrimonial dispute wherein they have entered into a compromise and a joint compromise petition has been filed and, therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the petitioners to face rigour of trial, in view of the decision rendered in the case of Shiji @ Pappu and Others vs. Radhika and Another [ : (2011) 4 J.L.J.R. (SC) 421 as well as decision rendered in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another [ : (2003) 4 SCC 675].;