Ravi Nath Verma,J. - (1.) The solitary question, which has come up for consideration in this writ application, is as to whether the criminal proceeding initiated on the basis of the first information report lodged at the instance of respondent no.2 being Chowka P.S. Case No. 34 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No. 484 of 2010 instituted under Section 498-A, 406, 420 and 494/34 of I.P.C. and also under Section 3(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the subsequent order taking cognizance vide order dated 26.03.2014 can be allowed to be compounded
(2.) The details of the facts is not required to be reproduced herein rather a brief statement of fact would be sufficient for the determination of the issue involved in this writ application: At the instance of the present respondent no.2, the informant, Chowka P.S. Case no. 34 of 2010 was instituted under the aforesaid Sections on the allegation that the respondent no.2 was married with the petitioner no.1 Khagen Chandra Mahato on 30.03.2007 and after the marriage, she stayed for some time in her matrimonial house happily with all the in-laws and family members, who are petitioner nos. 2 to 4, but after some time, they started demanding Rupees Five Lakhs for doing business and assaulted her time-to-time and made allegations regarding her caste and also threatened to solemnize the second marriage of her husband with another girl of their own caste. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet under the aforesaid sections where after the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 26.03.2014. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge- I, Seriakella as the cognizance was also taken under the provisions of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In the said court, as it appears from the Annexure-4 enclosed with this writ application, a petition was filed by the informant-respondent no.2 stating therein that she is the legally married wife of Khagen Chandra Mahato and though there were some differences earlier but now she has amicably settled the dispute with her husband and other accused persons and they are living happily and peacefully and leading her conjugal life and since good relationship has been restored, she does not want to proceed with this case any longer but as the court refused to pass any order before framing of charge, the present petitioners preferred this writ petition. It further appears from the record that earlier at the instance of the petitioners, one W.P.(Cr.) no. 370 of 2010 was filed for quashing of the First Information Report but the same was dismissed with observation that the petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all their grievances before the trial court at appropriate stage and the trial court shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order without being prejudiced with any observation made in the order.
(3.) In the instant case, the respondent no.2 suo moto appeared and filed counter affidavit stating therein that respondent no.2 has been living and staying with her husband-petitioner no.1 with all love and affection as wife and husband since a year back and now she has no grievance either with her husband or with any other petitioners of this case and she is also in family way. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it is also stated that she does not want to proceed with the case any further.;