Aziz Khan @ Aziz Ansari Son Of Late ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 4499 Jhar

                                               1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No. 3267 of 2022
                                                 ----

1.Aziz Khan @ Aziz Ansari son of late Jabbar Khan, aged about 32 years

2.Shakina Bibi, wife f late Jabbar Khan, aged about 71 years

3.Madina Bibi wife of Md. Shamshul Bibi aged about 43 years

4.Hamid Khan, son of late Jabbar Khan, aged about 31 years, all residents of Jidhadih More, Solagidih, P.O. Jhodhadih, P.S. Chas, District Bokaro ..... Petitioner s

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Shama Perveen wife of Shri Aziz Khan at present residing at Gulzarbagh near Z.TC. School, Bhuli, P.O. Bhuli, P.S.Bank More, District Dhanbad ...... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Advocate For the O.P.No.2 :- Mr. B.N.Ojha, Advocate

----

4/ 10.11.2022 This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal

proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2017 in

connection with Complaint Case No.863 of 2015 pending in the court of

learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is

arising out of matrimonial dispute and the complaint has been filed under

section 498A of the IPC and other sections of the I.P.C. as well as

sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He submits that now a good

sense has prevailed between the parties and the O.P.No.2 and the

petitioner no.1 are residing together and the dispute has been resolved

and both the husband and wife are residing together. He further submits

that for that a compromise petition being I.A. No.9539 of 2022 has been

filed.

Mr. B.N. Ojha, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 has appeared

suo motu and submits that compromise has been taken place by way of

filing the said I.A. petition which is supported by the separate affidavits

of both the sides. He submits that the O.P.no.2 does not want to proceed

with the matter further.

Mrs. Vandana Bharti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent State submits that the compromise is there.

In view of the above facts and the submissions of the learned

counsels appearing for the parties and also considering that the matter is

arising out of matrimonial dispute and both the parties are residing

together and the compromise petition filed by way of the said I.A petition

is supported by separate affidavits and the O.P.No.2 does not want to

proceed further in the matter as she is residing with the petitioner no.1

and also as there is no societal interest is involved in this matter as well

as considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in

the case of 'Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr.',

reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, and 'Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab &

Anr." reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the entire criminal proceeding

including the order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2017 in connection

with Complaint Case No.863 of 2015 pending in the court of learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad are quashed.

Cr.M.P.No.3267 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed of.

Pending I.A if any also stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,