Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 3304 of 2024 With I.A. No. 1131 of 2025 1. Ajay Ghai, aged about 41 years, Son of Ashok Ghai. 2. Ashok Ghai, aged about 69 years, Son of Late Girdhari Lal Ghai, 3. Ashish Ghai, aged about 42 years, Son of Sri Ashok Ghai. 4. Dipti Ghai, aged about 39 years, Wife of Sri, Ashish Ghai. All are residents of A-2/303, Bramha Suncity, Vadgaonsheri, Pune City, Dukirkline P.O.- Vadgaon Budruk, P.S.-Pune City, District- Pune, State- Maharashtra. ….. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Urvashi Singh, Wife of Ajay Ghai, Daughter of Late Uday Pratap Singh, resident of House No. 43, Road No. 3, Vidyanagar, Harmu, P.O. & P.S.- Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi ….. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Rai, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate. --------- Order No. 03/Dated: 10th February, 2025 1. This criminal miscellaneous petitioner has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 03.02.2020 in connection with Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 323 of 2019 corresponding to G.R. No. 386 of 2020, registered under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the present case, the petitioners and the informant have arrived at a mutual compromise and settlement, pursuant to which the petitioner no. 1 and the informant have filed a mutual divorce petition being Page | 2 M.J. Petitioner No. F-2749 of 2024 at Family Court, Mumbai, Bandra on 20.08.2024 which has been admitted. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the further proceeding of the P.S. Case No. 323 of 2019 for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act will be the abuse of process of Court and would yield no fruitful result. 4. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 is present and has not disputed the factum of compromise. 5. In view of the settlement between the parties and their decisions for taking divorce on the ground of mutual consent and in view of the decision of Honb’le apex court rendered in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Others Versus Babita Raghuvanshi and Others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58 in which it was held in Para-17 that the High court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Therefore, this criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. 6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1131 of 2025 is also disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Simran/