AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
As both these applications arise out of the same police station case number, hence, with consent of parties, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
Heard Mr. Ravi Shanker Pankaj, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned APP for the State.
Present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 864 of 2022 whereby the cognizance has been taken under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 21378 of 2024 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 while the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 21821 of 2024 is the husband.
The petitioners along with other accused persons are said to have subjected to physical, mental and economical torture the opposite party no. 2. It is further alleged that the husband of the opposite party no. 2 had never been willing to bear the expenses and always asked money from her and had forcibly taken Rs. 1,00,000/- from her father in 2010.
Instead of going into the facts and merits of the case, this Court proceeds on the basis of the second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners which clearly indicates the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise and pursuant to the same, a judgment and decree dated 19.11.2025 has been passed in Matrimonial Case No. 563 of 2025 which was filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act under mutual consent. It further appears that a Guardianship Case No. 62 of 2023 was also withdrawn and in M.J.C. No. 4477 of 2024 which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure-P/8), it has been clearly stated that the petitioner therein, who is the opposite party no. 2 here, had submitted that there were clear instructions that there would be no opposition to the quashing application filed on behalf of the present petitioners as the parties have already compromised all the cases.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 is present and does not refute the aforesaid submission with regard to compromise and rather supports the facts as mentioned in the second supplementary affidavit.
In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and more recently in the case of Mange Ram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. [2025 INSC 962], it has been clearly held that the cases which have resulted in a compromise especially those arising out of matrimonial relations and disputes, the courts should make all endevour to bring a peaceful quietus to the litigation and also ought to exercise their power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the ends of justice.
Considering the factual scenario of the case in the form of a compromise between the parties and also the settled legal position as laid down by several judicial pronouncements, this Court would proceed to quash the impugned order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 864 of 2022 and all prosecution arising therefrom as against these petitioners.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed.