JUDGEMENT 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners while pressing the prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 2.6.2007 for offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint Case No. 339(C)/2007 has submitted that subsequent to filing of the complaint petition the petitioners have patched up the matter with the complainant and therefore, when the compiainant-O.P. No.2 is living with all grace and dignity as a wife of Manoj Kumar Prasad, the continuance of the criminal prosecution would be a gross abuse of process of the Court. Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, for supporting his aforementioned submission has further drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 20.9.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Buxar granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners wherein it has been recorded that a compromise petition was filed before the Sessions Judge, Buxar stating, inter alia, that the complainant- O.P. No. 2 and her children will be kept in the house of her in-laws with safety and dignity and all comforts. A further assurance and undertaking was given on behalf of all the petitioners that all the family members, the petitioners and the husband of O.P. No. 2 will give proper love and affection to the compiainant-O.P. No. 2 and her children. He would submit that subsequent thereto as per undertaking given and recorded in the order of the Sessions Judge O.P. No. 2 has also gone back to the house of in-laws and is living with all grace and dignity in the house of the petitioners and that there is no further complain of any ill-treatment of O.P. No. 2 and her children in the hands of the petitioners or her husband. 3. Mr. 3. Mr. B.J. Ojha, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, would submit that he is not aware of the present status but then from the order of the Sessions Judge it is clear that some sort of understanding in view of change of behaviour of the petitioners was arrived at and if the petitioners as also the husband of the complainant-O.P. No. 2 have continued to bestow love and affection to the complainant-O.P. No. 2 and her children, he will have no objection in quashing of the proceedings but then this Court should put a word of caution in the minds of the petitioners, inasmuch as O.P. No. 2 is a lady with two minor children who has to be protected from any ill-treatment in future in the hands of the petitioners and her husband. 4. Considering the aforementioned aspect and especially the fact that a joint compromise petition was filed in the court of the Sessions Judge at the time of consideration of anticipatory bail of the petitioners and the same was also made the basis for grant of anticipatory bail to them and further that O.P. No. 2 and her children had no further grievance except ill-treatment and harassment in the hands of the petitioners as also her husband, this Court would quash the entire criminal proceedings including the aforementioned order taking cognizance dated 2.6.2007 with a clear stipulation that the undertaking given by the petitioners in the court below as recorded in the order of the Sessions Judge dated 20.9.2007 in A.B.P. No. 427/2007 shall constitute a binding condition against all the petitioners and if it is found that any part of such undertaking is violated in future, the complainant- O.P. No. 2 will be at liberty to file a fresh complaint and in such event this order of quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of the petitioners shall not in any way prejudice her. In other words, the complainant-O.P. No. 2 and her children must be kept and maintained by the husband and his family members, the petitioners in their house, with all grace and dignity. 5. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is allowed.