ARVIND YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THIS application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 25 of 2010, including the order dated 9.6.2011 passed 6/5/2014 Page 1 Tara Pado Mahto Versus State Of Jharkhand by S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa in G.R. No. 215 2010 whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A, 323/34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been taken against the petitioners who, on the allegation that they subjected the informant to cruelty on account of non -fulfillment of demand of dowry, have been made accused in that case.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the State and on perusal of the records, It does appear that after the case was lodged, the parties came to certain agreements, whereby it was decided that both the parties will have divorce on mutual consent and in fact the divorce has been granted to the informant on mutual consent for which application for divorce on mutual consent has already been filed and taking into account this aspect of the matter, it becomes expedient to quash the proceeding in view of the ratio laid down in a case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692, wherein it has been held that while exercising inherent power of quashing under Section 482, it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the court, chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case, also quash the proceeding.