1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 456 of 2023 …. 1. Mayank Kumar @ Prince, S/o Dewanshu Shekhar Kumar aged about 32 years 2. Devanshu Shekhar Kumar S/o Rajendra Kumar, aged about 59 years 3. Usha Devi, W/o Devanshu Shekhar Kumar aged about 49 years 4. Shashank Shekhar Kumar @ Rahul S/o Devanshu Shekhar Kumar aged about 29 years All are R/o Rangamati Sindari, PO & PS- Sindri, District- Dhanbad …… Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Minakshi Kumari, W/o Mayank Kumar, D/O Devandra Nath Mishra R/o Q. N. CD-309, Sector -3, H.E.C. Dhurwa, PO & PS- Dhurwa (Hatia), District- Ranchi …… Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, A. P. P. For the O. P. No. 2 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate ….. ORAL ORDER IN COURT 05/17.02.2025 The present Criminal Revision No. 456 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by Sri M. K. Singh, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1261 of 2023 arising out of Dhurwa P. S. Case No. 62 of 2019 corresponding to G. R. No. 2127 of 2019 by which discharge petition registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 1261 of 2023 filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 227 of the Cr. P. C. has been rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi instituted for the offences under Sections 498 (A) / 341/ 323/504/506/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition 2 Act. 2. I. A. No. 343 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of both the sides by way of a joint compromise petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case has been compromised between both the parties and for one another Criminal Revision No. 734 of 2023 [I. A. No. 452 of 2025] alongwith this Criminal Revision No. 456 of 2023 [I.A. No. 343 of 2025] have been listed to day only on the fact that the parties have compromise the matter and I. A. No. 452 of 2025 has been filed in Criminal Revision No. 734 of 2023 and I. A. No. 343 of 2025 has been filed in Criminal Revision No. 456 of 2023. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that I.A. No. 343 of 2025 in Criminal Revision No. 456 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of both the sides by way of a joint compromise application. It is further submitted that he has filed supplementary affidavit on 11.02.2025 by stating therein that Original Suit (MTS) No. 1001 of 2023 has been allowed vide order dated 10.01.2025 by Mrs. Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned Additional Principle Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi in favour of the petitioner no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 and the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 has been dissolved under the provision of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is further submitted that the settlement arrived at between the parties to the suit has been complied with and mutual divorce has been decreed also and the petitioner has already paid Rs. 30,00,000/- to the opposite party no. 2. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Others and State of Haryana and Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 and hence, I. A. No. 343 of 2025 may be allowed and the Criminal Revision No. 456 of 2023 may be disposed of on the said compromise. 6. On the other hand, no objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the State 7. Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the O. P. No. 2 also raised no objection and has submitted that the case has been compromised between the parties and also admitted the factum of compromise between the petitioner and the O. P. No. 2. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 has no grievance against the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 has received Rs. 30,00,000/- from the petitioner. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the I. A. No. 343 of 2025. 9. It appears that the relationship between the parties is admitted. 10. It appears that the petitioner no. 1, Mayank Kumar @ Prince is husband, the petitioner no. 2, Devanshu Shekhar Kumar is father in-law, the petitioner no. 3 Usha Devi is mother in-law and the petitioner no. 4, Shashank Shekhar Kumar @ Rahul is the brother in-law (Devar) of the opposite party no. 2. 11. Para- 2 to 4 of the supplementary affidavit dated 11.02.2025 filed on behalf of the petitioner, read as follows:- 4 “Para-2:- That it is stated that by way of this supplementary affidavit, the petitioner wants to bring on record the Judgment/order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Original Suit (M.T.S.) No. 1001/2023 which was filed by the parties to the suit for grant of mutual divorce u/s 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. Para-3:- That it is pertinent to mention here that the above- mentioned Original Suit (M.T.S.) No. 1001/2023 has been allowed in favour of the petitioner no. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 and the marriage between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2 has been dissolved under the provision of section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955vide order dated 10.01.2025 passed by Sri Sanjeeta Srivastava, Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi. Para-4:- That it is stated that the settlement arrived at between the parties to the suit has been complied with and mutual divorce has been decreed also and the petitioner no. 1 has already paid Rs. 30,00,000/- to the Opposite Party No. 2.” 12. Para- 5 to 12 of the I. A. No. 343 of 2025, filed on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2, read as follows:- “Para-5:- That it is stated that thereafter by the instance of the parties, both the parties appeared in the Learned Court of Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, Learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi and on 29.09.2023 a conciliation sitting is convened under the guidance of Learned Court and the parties come to a final settlement of all the litigation pending between the parties. Para-6:- That it is stated that in terms of the compromise entered between the parties under conciliation sitting dated 29.09.2023 it is agreed between the parties that:- a) The petitioner agreed to pay total Rs. 30 Lakhs as one time settlement of all claims of the Opposite Party No. 2 and 5 out of the same Rs. 10 lakhs have already been paid by the petitioner to Opposite Party No. 2 in connection with order passed in ABA No. 7488/2019 and ABA no. 7619/2019. And the rest amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs will be paid to the Opposite Party No. 2 as a full and final settlement/ one time Settlement. b) It is agreed that the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 will file a mutual divorce petition and on the date of admission of the mutual divorce petition, a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs will be paid by the petitioner by way of Demand Draft. c) After the disposal of Original Suit (Guardianship) No. 833/2023 filed by the petitioner, Rs. 5 Lakhs will be paid to the Opposite Party No. 2 at the time of disposal of the case. d) On the date of second motion in Mutual Divorce Suit, the petitioner will pay Rs. 5 Lakhs to Opposite Party No. 2; e) At the time of disposal of the criminal case lodged by the Opposite Party No. 2 bearing G.R. Case No. 2127/2019 on the ground of compromise, she will be paid Rs. 5 Lakhs. f) The petitioner will withdraw Complaint Case No. 2712/2019 filed against the parents of the Opposite Party No. 2 before second motion of the Mutual Divorce Suit. It is also agreed that the petitioner no. 1 will be entitled to meet his child once in a month of December through online or physically. Para-7:- That it is stated that in compliance of the settlement so arrived between the parties, the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 have filed mutual divorce suit bearing Original Suit (Matrimonial) No. 1001/2023 under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same is pending before the Learned Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. The petitioner has been making payment as per the compromise entered between the parties. Para-8:- That it is stated that hence it is amply clear that the Opposite Party No. 2 will have no claim whatsoever against the petitioner in any manner as the maintenance will also 6 merged with the compromise entered on 29.09.2023. And on the other hand the petitioners will also have no claim whatsoever against the Opposite Party No. 2 or her family members in any manner and they will not indulge in any kind of future litigation with each other. Para-9:- That it is stated that Opposite Party no. 2 and petitioner states that no state policy is involved in the present case and the dispute is purely private in nature and with the intervention of the well wishers they have compromise the matter and harmonious relation has been restored among them. Para-10:- That it is stated that good sense has prevailed among the parties and they have decided to end the entire false and fabricated case pending against the petitioner and the Opposite Party No. 2 and her family members. Para-11:- That it is stated that on the force of such statement the Opposite Party no. 2 does not want to proceed with the present case. Para-12:- That, both the parties have further agreed to end the litigation pending between the parties before any court of law. 13. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Others and State of Haryana and Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 of para-13 and 14 as follows:- “Para-13:- The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt 7 which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their "young" days in chasing their "cases" in different courts. Para-14:- There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper-technical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.” 14. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 at para-23 and 24 and 25 as follows:- “Para-23:- The submission advanced on behalf of Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent- complainant) before the High Court, was accepted. The High Court arrived at the conclusion, that the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi had erroneously placed reliance on the decision rendered by this 8 Court in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn., which had already been overruled by the judgment rendered by a larger Bench in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi. While considering the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants/accused, the High Court concluded, that the material/documents/record which the complainant was placing reliance on, did not fall within the ambit and scope of the term “record of the case” contained in Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. According to the High Court, the record of the case referred to in Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was only such record, documents and articles which, on consideration by the Magistrate, are sent to the Court of Sessions, consequent upon passing an order of commitment. The material and documents relied upon by the appellants/accused in the present controversy would, therefore, not fall within the zone of consideration at the hands of the Court of Session under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the submissions advanced at the behest of the appellants/accused were declined. For the aforesaid reasons, the High Court accepted the Criminal Revision Petition filed by Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant). The order dated 7.8.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi was accordingly quashed. The parties were accordingly directed to participate in the further proceedings before the Court of Session. Para-24:- We have considered the submissions advanced at the behest of the rival parties. We are of the view, that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court had before it an exhaustive and detailed order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, it ought to, therefore, have examined the controversy, while keeping in mind the inherent power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. specially because the Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 7.8.1999, had concluded, on the basis of the material relied upon by the accused, that no case was made out against the accused. This according to learned counsel, was permissible in view of the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Para-25:- Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is being extracted hereunder:- “482. Saving of inherent power of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” The discretion vested in a High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised suo-moto to prevent the abuse of process of a court, and/or to secure the ends of justice.” 15. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the 9 Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in the case of Jai Prakash Chaurasia Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (1994) 2 BLJR 825 at para-4 and 5 as follows:- “Para-4:- In this case, the petitioner is also prosecuted under Section 494 of the I.P.C. as per Section 198 of the Cr. P. C. I find that the prosecution under Section 494 of the IPC can only be initiated on the complaint made by the aggrieved party. Here, the complainant has come forward in this application before this Court showing her willingness not to proceed with the matter. I find that the offence under Sections 498-A, 406 and 494 of the IPC are not compoundable. Para- 5 Counsel for the parties have placed reliance in Mahesh Chand and another v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1988 SC 2111. In Mahesh Chand (supra) I find that the offence was under Section 307 of the I. P. C. and since the parties had come to an agreement and good sense had prevailed upon them, the Supreme Court directed the Court below to permit the parties to compound the offence.” 16. It has been held in the case of Bitan Sengupta and Another Versus State of West Bengal and Another reported in (2018) 18 SCC 366 at Para 6 and 7 as follows:- “Para-6:- As per the appellants, the parties have settled the matter, as they have decided to keep harmony between them to enable them to live with peace and love. The compromise records that Respondent 2 have no grievances whatsoever against the appellants and want both the appellants to get acquitted from the cases. Further, both the parties have undertaken not to indulge in any litigation against each other and withdraw all the complaints pending between them before the Court. Para-7:- In the aforesaid circumstances and going by the spirit of the law laid down by this Court in B. S. Joshi V. State of Haryana [B. S. Joshi V. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848], we are of the opinion that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and compounded the offences. It is, more so, when the settlement between the parties, who were husband and wife, was even acted upon as the parties took mutual divorce on that basis”. 10 17. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. Versus State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 at para 13, 14, 15 and 17 as follows:- “Para 13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4) “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” Para 14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36) “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social 11 responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 12 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” Para 15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21) “21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12) ‘12. … There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it 13 out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.’ The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.” Para 17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” 18. It has been held in the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Bhagat versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2022) 18 SCC 465 at Para 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 as follows:- “Para-8:- Having examined the matter in its totality, it appears that the High Court, while disposing of the revision petition with the application moved by the parties, did not pause to consider that maintaining of conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 498-A IPC would not be securing the ends of justice and with such conviction being maintained and the appellant losing his job, the family would again land itself in financial distress which may ultimately operate adverse to the harmony and happy conjugal life of the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent No. 2 both have reiterated their stand that they have resolved 14 their disputes and are living together while leading a happy conjugal life. Para-9:- Taking note of the object of Section 498-A IPC, the expected approach of the High Court in the event of bona fide settlement of disputes had been duly exposited by this Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana and Another: (2003) 4 SCC 675, where this Court has underscored the duty of the Court to encourage the genuine settlement of matrimonial disputes and said as under: (SCC pp.682-83, para 12-16) “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes. 13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, [(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts. 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 was 15 to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860. 15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482 of the Code. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR abovementioned.” Para-10:- The same view has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Bitan Sengupta v. State of W.B [Bitan Sengupta v. State of W.B, (2018) 18 SCC 366 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 719] Para-11:- In the aforesaid view of the matter, and taking note of the terms of settlement as stated in the application moved before the High Court which include the undertaking of the appellant that he would be nominating the respondent No. 2 as the nominee in his service record; and where the parties are said to be leading a happy conjugal life, we are clearly of the view that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and quashed all the proceedings with annulment of the orders against the appellant. The High Court having not done so, we are inclined to adopt this course so as to secure the ends of justice. Para-12:- Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and while allowing I.A. No. 6052 of 2020 moved before the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 910 of 2019, all the proceedings 16 arising out of the said FIR No. 204 of 2014 are quashed qua the appellant. Obviously, the order of conviction of the appellant is set aside.” 19. It also transpires that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2. It further transpires from the supplementary affidavit on 11.02.2025 that Original Suit (MTS) No. 1001 of 2023 has been allowed vide order dated 10.01.2025 by Sri Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned Additional Principle Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi in favour of the petitioner no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 and the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 has been dissolved under the provision of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. It further appears that the settlement arrived at between the parties to the suit has been complied with and mutual divorce has been decreed also and the petitioner has already paid Rs. 30,00,000/- to the opposite party no. 2 as one time permanent alimony. 20. In view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as discussed above and also in view of the fact that parties have entered into compromise among themselves and by way of one time settlement on payment of Rs. Thirty Lakh Only (Rs. 30,00,000/-) and there is no possibility of conviction in future in this case, this Court in view of the law laid down the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Others and State of Haryana and Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675 and in the case of Rajiv Thapar and Others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 and in the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in the case of Jai Prakash Chaurasia Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (1994) 2 BLJR 825 and in the case of Bitan Sengupta and Another Versus State of West Bengal and 17 Another reported in (2018) 18 SCC 366 and in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. Versus State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and in the case of Rajendra Bhagat versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2022) 18 SCC 465 in its discretionary power can suo-moto exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. an also while sitting in revisional jurisdiction to prevent the abuse the process of a Court and/or to secure the interest of justice or for the ends of justice and also in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Ors. Versus State of Bihar and Others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, the present FIR being Dhurwa P. S. Case No. 62 of 2019 corresponding to G. R. No. 2127 of 2019 instituted for the offences under Sections 498 (A) / 341/ 323/504/506/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by Sri M. K. Singh, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1261 of 2023 arising out of Dhurwa P. S. Case No. 62 of 2019 corresponding to G. R. No. 2127 of 2019 are set aside in the interest of justice in terms of mutual settlement and joint compromise between the parties. 21. In light of the supplementary affidavit dated 11.02.2025 and I. A. No. 343 of 2025 filed on behalf of the petitioners, the petitioners namely Mayank Kumar @ Prince, Devanshu Shekhar Kumar, Usha Devi, Shashank Shekhar Kumar @ Rahul stand discharged in connection with Dhurwa P. S. Case No. 62 of 2019 corresponding to G. R. No. 2127 of 2019 instituted for the offences under Sections 498 (A) / 341/ 323/504/506/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act pending 18 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and they are set at free. 22. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision No. 456 of 2023 is allowed in terms of the compromise entered between the parties and stands disposed of. I.A. No. 343 of 2025 is also allowed and stands disposed of. 23. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below for the needful. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Kamlesh/