D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Anil Kumar learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as also Mr. Nilesh Kumar learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
(2.) THE petitioners have initially filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. of Simdega P.S. case No. 41 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. case No. 156 of 2005 for the alleged offence under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega but later on the learned Counsels of both the sides submitted that the parties have entered into amicable settlement of the disputes with the intervention of the well wishers and pursuant to that a compromise petition was filed by the petitioners and the opposite party No. 2 herein in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega which has been annexed as annexire -4 with the present petition. Annexures 2 and 3 are also compromise petitions duly signed by the complainant/opposite party No. 2, Sahina Parvin and her signature was duly identified by her lawyer. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that immediately after institution of the present police case compromise was held between the parties and accordingly good relation restored between them. As such, the learned Counsel submitted that continuation of the present proceeding against the petitioners would be abuse of process of law. It is pointed out that since the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was also attracted in the F.I.R, the learned court below did not dispose of the compromise petitions. However, the learned Counsel emphatically stressed that the Honble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions have allowed compromise between the husband and wife and with other in -laws. The Honble Apex Court have observed that hyper -technical view in such situation of compromise would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. It was further observed by the Apex Court that there was every likelihood that non -exercise of inherent power to quash the proceeding to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. The learned Counsel finally submitted that in exercise of inherent power the entire criminal prosecution of the petitioners pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Simdega may be quashed.
(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 conceded that the parties have entered into amicable settlement of the dispute and the criminal prosecution of the petitioners may therefore, requires consideration to be quashed. He further submitted that the opposite party No. 2/ informant is living peacefully without any grievance from the petitioners.;