IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.33161 of 2011
1. Dhananjay Paswan Late Basudeo Paswan Vill-Birwar, P.S-Mahishi,Dist-
Saharsa
2. Ram Ratan Paswan Late Prasudeo Paswan Vill-Birwar, P.S-Mahishi,Dist-
Saharsa
3. Sheela Devi Ram Ratan Paswan Vill-Birwar,P.S-Mahishi, Dist-Saharsa
4. Kumdheri Devi Late Basudeo Paswan Vill-Birwar,P.S-Mahishi, Dist-Saharsa
5. Mukesh Paswan Late Basudeo Paswan Vill-Birwar,P.S-Mahishi, Dist-Saharsa
6. Rinku Devi@Rink Kumari Mukesh Paswan Vill-Birwar, P.S-Mahishi,Dist-
Saharsa
… … Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Sarita Devi, wife of Dhananjai Paswan daughter of Bhola Paswan, resident of
vill-Mahisarho, P.S-Mahishi, Distt-Saharsa
… … Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-01-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned A.P.P.
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33161 of 2011 dt.03-01-2019
2/4
2. The petitioners have moved the Court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following
relief:
“That, this application on behalf of the petitioners
above name against the order dated 25.01.2010
passed by the learned S D J M Saharsa in
complaint case No. 1666 (C) of 2009 dated
15.10.2009 under Section 498 A of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act where by the cognizance has been taken
against the all petitioners is directed in the
following circumstances.”
3. The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of the opposite
party no. 2 and the other petitioners are his relatives. The
allegation against them is demand of motorcycle and assault and
also that the petitioner no. 1 was in illicit relationship with another
woman.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in
Matrimonial Case No. 111 of 2009 filed by the petitioner no. 1
against the opposite party no. 2 for restitution of conjugal rights, a
compromise has been entered into between the parties and the case
was disposed off. It was further submitted that in Miscellaneous
Case No. 166 of 2009 filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the
petitioner no. 1, the case was disposed off by order dated
16.11.2011 in view of the amicable settlement between the parties
under which the petitioner no. 1 is paying monthly maintenance of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33161 of 2011 dt.03-01-2019
3/4
Rs. 3,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,500/- to the son,
that is, a total of Rs. 4,500/- per month and the same has been paid
till November, 2018. Learned counsel submitted that once the
Matrimonial and Miscellaneous cases have been compromised on
amicably and mutually agreed terms, the criminal case should also
be closed.
5. Learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 were not in a position to dispute the fact of compromise
between the parties, both in the matrimonial case filed by the
petitioner no.1 against the opposite party no. 2 and the
miscellaneous case filed by the opposite party no. 2 against the
petitioner no. 1.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court
finds that a case for exercise of inherent powers of this Court, to
prevent the abuse of the process of the court and to otherwise
secure the ends of justice, has been made out.
7. In view thereof, the application is allowed. The order
dated 25.01.2010 passed in Complaint Case No. 1666(C) of 2009
by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act stands quashed.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33161 of 2011 dt.03-01-2019
4/4
8. However, this will be subject to the petitioner no. 1
acting in terms of the compromise entered into between the
parties.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T
