Surdhani Devi vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 and learned counsel appearing for the State. The entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1687 of 2011, including the order dated 13.3.2012, passed by the then learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence under Sections 498(A), 406 /34 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the matter has been compromised in between the parties.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that taking into account that aspect of the matter, this Court has already quashed the order taking cognizance against Ravi Ohdar, husband of the informant, vide Cr. M.P. No. 1841 of 2012 and hence, the order taking cognizance warrants to be quashed so far these petitioners, who happened to be the mother-in-law, father-in-law, sisters-in-law and brother-in-law are concerned, in view of the decision rendered in a case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, .

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submits that the parties have settled their disputes.

In such situation, the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1687 of 2011 including the order dated 13.3.2012 taking cognizance is hereby quashed so far the petitioners are concerned. In the result, this application stands allowed.