( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 945 of 2024 ------ Gaurav Verma, aged about 32 years, son of Vishnu Dayal Sharma, resident of Government Quarter F-2, Atchutapuram, Meknasi Hill, Gajuwaka, Vizag, P.O and P.S. Gajuwaka, District- Vishakhapatnam, A.P. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Amita Kumari, wife of Gaurav Verma and daughter of Ajeet Prasad, resident of at House No. 104-A, Swarnakar Mohalla, near Hanuman Mandir, Pithoria, P.O. and P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand .…..Opp. Parties WITH Cr. Revision No. 325 of 2025 ------ Gaurav Verma, aged about 45 years, son of Vishnu Dayal Sharma, resident of Government Quarter F-2, Atchutapuram, Meknasi Hill, Gajuwaka, Vizag, P.O and P.S. Gajuwaka, District- Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Amita Kumari, wife of Gaurav Verma and daughter of Ajeet Prasad, resident of at House No. 104-A, Swarnakar Mohalla, near Hanuman Mandir, Pithoria, P.O. and P.S. Pithoria, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand .….. Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate (Cr. Revision No. 945 of 2024) (Cr. Revision No. 325 of 2025) For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl.P.P ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 2 (Cr. Revision No. 945 of 2024) : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, A.P.P. (Cr. Revision No. 325 of 2025) For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Rishu Ranjan, Advocate (Cr. Revision No. 945 of 2024) (Cr. Revision No. 325 of 2025) ------ JUDGMENT C.A.V On: 08.04.2025 Pronounced on: 17.04.2025 The Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the judgment dated 25.06.2024 passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 30 of 2020 passed by Mrs. Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi by which the learned Court below has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 18,000/- per month to Opposite Party No. 2 and the same is to be paid on or before 10th of each succeeding month and Rs. 3,00,000/- which has been paid in compliance of A.B.A No. 5546 of 2021, has been directed to adjust towards the maintenance amount and maintenance amount has been made payable from the date of application dated 23.01.2020 and the maintenance amount which has been already paid is directed to be adjusted and the petitioner is at liberty to pay arrear amount in six installments within a year and the petitioner has been further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- within one month of date of order. 2. The Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner by challenging the order dated 05.02.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 792 of 2023 (Complaint Case No. 4487 of 2019) by Ms. Archana Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ranchi by which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ranchi has rejected the discharge ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 3 petition filed by the petitioner and has directed the petitioner to appear for framing of charge for committing the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C which is pending in the Court of Ms. Archana Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 3. Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the State in Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024, Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, learned counsel for the State in Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025 and Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below in Original Maintenance Case No. 30 of 2020 is not sustainable. It is further submitted that the order dated 05.02.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 792 of 2023 arising out of Complaint Case No. 4487 of 2019 is not sustainable. However, it is submitted that the cases are settled and Demand Draft of Rs. 8,00,000/- and Rs. 8,00,000/- i.e. total Rs. 16,00,000/-(Rs. Sixteen Lakhs) were given by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the O.P No.2. It is submitted that petitioner is the husband of O.P No. 2 and both the cases have been settled between the petitioner and the O.P No. 2 amicably. The petitioner has paid Rs. 16,00,000/- in both the cases instituted by the O.P No. 2 against the petitioner in the maintenance case under filed Section 125 Cr.P.C and also in Complaint Case filed under Section 498-A of I.P.C. It is submitted ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 4 that the matter has been settled before JHALSA on certain terms and conditions and in the light of settlement made before JHALSA, the petitioner has paid Rs. 8,00,000/- and Rs. 8,00,000/- i.e. total Rs. 16,00,000/- to the O.P No.2 towards full and final settlement in both cases. It is further submitted that the petitioner is paying one time maintenance amount and also compensation amount to the O.P No. 2 towards full and final settlement in both cases. It is submitted that in view of compromise between both the sides, these Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025 may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State in Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 and in Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025 have raised no objection. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 appearing in both Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025 has also admitted the factum of compromise between both the sides and submitted that both the cases have been settled between the petitioner and the O.P No. 2 and the O.P No. 2 has received Rs. 8,00,000/- and Rs. 8,00,000/- i.e. total Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rs. Sixteen Lakhs) on 08.04.2025 in the light of settlement arrived at before JHALSA and as such, he has no objection if the final order is passed in favour of the petitioner in both the cases and the O.P No.2 has no objection if the petitioner is acquitted in Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025. 7. It appears that after appearance of O.P No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025, this Court vide order dated 14.02.2025 had referred the matter before JHALSA for mediation between both the sides as they were ready and willing to settle their dispute and the learned Member ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 5 Secretary, JHALSA was directed to submit the report before this Court and in the meantime, the petitioner was directed to deposit a demand draft of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of O.P No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 by granting interim relief. 8. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.04.2025, Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025 was tagged with the case records of Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 on the request of both the sides and accordingly, both the cases are being heard together. 9. In the meantime, a report was received on 02.04.2025 vide letter no. JHALSA/778 from the learned Member Secretary, JHALSA before this Court along with Mediation Report sent by Sri Rahul Sinha, Mediator JHALSA to the Assistant Registrar, High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi and also the Settlement Agreement between the petitioner and the O.P No. 2. 10. It appears from the report sent vide Letter No. 778 dated 02.04.2025 by learned Member Secretary, JHALSA as well as from the Mediator Sri Rahul Sinha vide Letter No. 778 dated 02.04.2025 that mediation between the petitioner and the O.P No. 2 was successful and the matter was finally settled on 01.04.2025 and during mediation both the sides have agreed to resolve their disputes amicably and both the sides have signed the Settlement Agreement during his presence and the Mediation is successful. Although, no date has been mentioned on the Settlement Agreement but it was signed by the Mediator Sri Rahul Sinha on 01.04.2025 and it also contains the signature of petitioner Gaurav Verma i.e. the petitioner on the one hand and Ms. Amita Kumari i.e. the O.P No. 2 on the other. 11. The terms and conditions of Settlement Agreement have been incorporated by the Mediator of JHALSA in Para-1 to Para-8 ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 6 of Settlement Agreement which read as follows:- “Para-1:- That it is mutually settled between the parties that the petitioner shall pay a total sum of Rs. 23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs only) to the Opposite Party No. 2 in the following manner:- (i) Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupee Eight Lakhs only) shall be paid before the Hon’ble High Court at the time of hearing of the Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024. (ii) Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupee Eight Lakhs only) shall be paid before the Hon’ble High Court at the time of hearing of the Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025. (iii) Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupee Four Lakhs only) shall be paid at the time when the mutual divorce petition is filed. (iv) Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupee Three Lakhs only) shall be paid before the final judgment or decree in the mutual divorce case. Para-2:- That the O.P No. 2 undertakes to initiate the withdrawal process for all pending criminal and civil cases filed against the petitioner upon receiving the first installment payment as stated in Clause-1. Para-3:- That both the parties further agrees to file a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or applicable personal law, and to co-operate in its speedy disposal. The mutual divorce petition shall be filed immediately upon receiving Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupess Four Lakhs only) as per Clause-1(iii). Para-4:- That both the parties shall co-operate and take appropriate technical, organizational and legal measures to put and end to the litigation, including filing a quashing petition in the Hon’ble High Court for all pending cases where necessary. Para-5:- That after the payment of the one time settlement amount in full as per Clause 1 and the withdrawal of all pending cases, there shall remain no claim, dispute or legal proceeding between the parties arising out of their matrimonial relationship. Both parties agree not to initiate or pursue any future claims against each other or their family members in this ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 7 regard. Para-6:- That the parties confirm that they have entered into this settlement out of their own free will, without any fear, coercion, or undue influence from any side. Para-7:- That both the parties agrees not to annoy, disturb or interfere each other in their personal life through any mode after this settlement agreement. Para-8:- That the contents of this settlement have been explained to the parties in vernacular and they have understood and admitted the same to be correct”. 12. I.A No. 4448 of 2025 in Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 has been filed on behalf of both the sides by way of Joint Compromise Petition. 13. Perused the I.A No. 4448 of 2025, records of Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 and considered the submission of both the sides. 14. Paragraph Nos. 4 to 14 of the I.A No. 4448 of 2025 read as follows:- “Para-4:- That the petitioner and O.P No. 2 are husband and wife and dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature. Para-5:- That the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi vide order dated 25.06.2024 passed in Maintenance Case No. 30 of 2020 had been pleased to allow the petition of O.P No. 2 and awarded an amount of Rs. 18,000/- per month as maintenance to be paid to the O.P No. 2 by the petitioner. Para-6:- That the said order was challenged before this Hon’ble Court vide Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 wherein this Hon’ble Court was pleased to refer the matter to JHALSA for mediation vide order dated 14.02.2025. Para-7:- That upon mediation, the parties to the dispute ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 8 have come to a consensus and have settled the dispute subject to payment of Rs. 23,00,000/- as one time amount payable at different stages. Para-8:- That the parties have agreed as under:- (i) Petitioner shall pay Rs. 8,00,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of O.P No. 2 at the time of hearing of Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024. (ii) Petitioner shall pay Rs. 8,00,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of O.P No. 2 at the time of hearing of Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025. (iii) Petitioner shall pay Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of O.P No. 2 at the time of filing of mutual divorce petition. (iv) Petitioner shall pay Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of O.P No. 2 before the final judgment in the mutual divorce petition. Para-9:- That in compliance of the terms of the settlement agreement signed at JHALSA, the petitioner has prepared demand draft having DD No. 212008 dated 25.03.2025 for Rs. 8,00,000/- drawn in favour of O.P No.2. Para-10:- That further to above the petitioner and O.P No. 2 have amicably settled the subsisting dispute by way of settlement arrived at mediation centre JHALSA and an agreement to that effect has also been executed on 01.04.2025. Para-11:- That the parties state that in terms of settlement arrived at mediation centre, JHALSA, instant petition can be disposed. Para-12:- That the O.P No. 2 will have no further claim of maintenance and has no objection if the revision is allowed and the order of maintenance is set aside in terms of settlement arrived at JHALSA. Para-13:- That it is stated and submitted that the parties ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 9 jointly pray that it will be in the interest of justice that the main revision application be allowed so as to enable the parties to continue with their life. Para-14:- That the parties have voluntarily agreed on the grounds as above praying to allow the aforementioned case as against each other without any fear, pressure, inducement, threat or promise”. 15. The above I.A No. 4448 of 2025 has been filed in Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 by the petitioner Gaurav Verma and O.P No. 2 Ms. Amita Kumari and they have put their respective signatures on the Joint Compromise Petition and even Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel for the O.P No.2 have put their respective signatures in the above Joint Compromise Petition filed vide I.A No. 4448 of 2025 and the petitioner and O.P No. 2 have also sworn their respective affidavit dated 02.04.2025 which have been kept at Page 8 and 9 respectively to this I.A No. 4448 of 2025 along with respective Aadhar Cards and also contain the photocopy of Demand Draft of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 16. I.A No. 4275 of 2025 in Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of both the sides by way of Joint Compromise Petition. 17. Perused the I.A No. 4275 of 2025, records of Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025 and considered the submission of both the sides. 18. Paragraph Nos. 4 to 16 of the I.A No. 4275 of 2025 read as follows:- “Para-4:- That the petitioner and O.P No. 2 are husband and wife and dispute between the parties is matrimonial in nature. ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 10 Para-5:- That the Court of Miss Kaveri Kumari, learned J.M, Ranchi vide order dated 03.01.2020 had been pleased to issue summon as against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C to face the trial. Para-6:- That thereafter the petitioner preferred one discharge application vide M.C.A No. 792 of 2022 which was rejected vide order dated 05.02.2025. Para-7:- That pursuant thereto, the case record is running at the stage of framing of charge as against the petitioner therein. Para-8:- That vide order dated 14.02.2025, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to refer the matter to JHALSA for mediation. Para-9:- That upon mediation, the parties to the dispute have come to a consensus and have settled the dispute subject to payment of Rs. 23,00,000/- as one time amount payable at different stages. Para-10:- That the parties have agreed as hereunder:- (i) Petitioner shall pay Rs. 8,00,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of O.P No. 2 at the time of hearing of Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024. (ii) Petitioner shall pay Rs. 8,00,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of O.P No. 2 at the time of hearing of Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025. (iii) Petitioner shall pay Rs. 4,00,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of O.P No. 2 at the time of filing of mutual divorce petition. (iv) Petitioner shall pay Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of demand draft drawn in favour of O.P No. 2 before the final judgment in the mutual divorce petition. Para-11:- That in compliance of the terms of the settlement agreement signed at JHALSA, the petitioner has prepared demand draft having DD No. 211982 dated ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 11 17.03.2025 for Rs. 8,00,000/- drawn in favour of O.P No.2. Para-12:- That further to above the petitioner and O.P No. 2 have amicably settled the subsisting dispute by way of settlement arrived at mediation centre JHALSA and an agreement to that effect has also been executed on 01.04.2025. Para-13:- That the parties state that considering the fact that the offence punishable under Section 498(A) is compoundable in nature and in terms of settlement arrived at mediation centre, JHALSA, instant petitioner can be disposed. Para-14:- That the O.P No. 2 has no objection if the Criminal Revision is allowed in terms of the settlement arrived at JHALSA and discharge the petitioner from the present case. Para-15:- That it is stated and submitted that the parties jointly pray that it will be in the interest of justice that the main revision application be allowed so as to enable he parties to continue with their life. Para-16:- That the parties have voluntarily agreed on the grounds as above praying to allow the aforementioned case as against each other without any fear, pressure, inducement, threat or promise”. 19. The above I.A No. 4275 of 2025 in Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner Gaurav Verma and the O.P No. 2 Ms. Amita Kumari and they have put their respective signatures on the Joint Compromise Petition and even Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel for the O.P No.2 have put their respective signatures in the above Joint Compromise Petition filed vide I.A No. 4275 of 2025 and the petitioner and O.P No. 2 have ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 12 also sworn their respective affidavit dated 02.04.2025 which have been kept at Page 8 and 9 respectively to this I.A No. 4275 of 2025 along with respective Aadhar Cards and also contain the photocopy of Demand Draft of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakhs). 20. 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 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.” ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 13 21. 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 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 ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 14 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.” 22. It has been held 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 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.” 23. 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 which are as follows:- “Para:-6 As per the appellants, the parties have settled the matter, as they have decided to keep harmony between them to ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 15 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”. 24. It has been held 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 ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 16 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 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 tranquility 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. ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 17 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. 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) ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 18 ‘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 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 -17- 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.” 25. It has been held in the case of Rajendra Bhagat versus State of Jharkhand and Another reported in 2022 (18) SCC 465 at Para Nos. 8 to 12 as follows:- ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 19 “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-AIPC 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 Respondent 2 both have reiterated their stand that they have resolved their disputes and are living together while leading a happy conjugal life. Para:-9 Taking note of the object of Section 498-AIPC, the expected approach of the High Court in the event of bona fide settlement of disputes had been duly exposited 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] , wherein 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, paras 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 [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 ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 20 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 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 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 ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 21 that he would be nominating Respondent 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 IA No. 6052 of 2020 moved before the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 910 of 2019, all the proceedings 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. 26. It appears that the case has been compromised between the petitioner and O.P No.2 on full and final payment of Rs. 23,00,000/- by the petitioner to the O.P No. 2 towards full and final settlement. 27. It further appears that the petitioner Gaurav Verma has handed over the demand draft of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakh) and Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight Lakh) i.e. total Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rs. Sixteen Lakh) to the learned counsel for the O.P No. 2 which have been received by the O.P No. 2 Ms. Amita Kumari and the remaining Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rs. Seven Lakhs) has to be paid in different stages as mentioned above in I.A No. 4448 of 2025 and I.A No. 4275 of 2025 respectively. 28. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the compromise between both the sides, the judgment dated 25.06.2024 in Original Maintenance Case No. 30 of 2020 passed by Mrs. Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi is modified ( 2025:JHHC:14222 ) 22 and it is held that total maintenance amount to be paid by the petitioner Gaurav Verma to the O.P No. 2 Amita Kumari will be Rs. 23,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Three Lakhs) towards full and final settlement in the maintenance case. 29. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Patna High Court, the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 4487 of 2019 by Ms. Archana Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate XXV, Ranchi is set aside in terms of compromise and settlement made before the mediator, JHALSA at Ranchi and the petitioner Gaurav Verma is discharged in connection with Complaint Case No. 4487 of 2019 for the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C and the petitioner is set at free. 30. Thus, both these Criminal Revision Applications i.e. Criminal Revision No. 945 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 325 of 2025 are allowed in terms of compromise and stand disposed of. 31. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Court of Mrs. Sanjeeta Srivastava, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-I, Ranchi/ or her successor Court and be also sent to the Court of Ms. Archana Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Ranchi/ or her successor Court for their needful. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Avinash/ A.F.R