ORDER By the Court.- The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this . Court under Section 482. Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Katras P.S. Case No. 120 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 1347 of 2009 including the order impugned dated 19.8.2009 by which cognizance of the offence was taken by the CJM. Dhanbad under Sections 498(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners. 2. The prosecution story in short was that the informant-opposite party No.2 presented a written report before Katras police on 9.5.2009 narrating that she was married to the petitioner No. 1 Rakesh Kumar Sarkar on 9.3.2008 and her father had given presentation on the eve of her marriage according to his capacity. But soon after marriage her in-laws as well as husband started demanding Rs. 3 lakhs in cash and on Alto Car. When she requested that she might be permitted to live peacefully. her mother-in-law Madhuri Sarkar and sister-in-law Soma Roy did not listen and had been extending torture by stopping her food and dragging her on the floor by holding her hair. She further narrated that whenever she used to narrate her misery to her husband he also used to assault by taking side of his mother and sister. Her father-in-law was retired employee of BCCL who extended deaf ears to the abuses hurled to her and used to ask her to bring money from her mother failing which she would suffer similar way. Her father was a retired bank employee but the accused persons had been demanding an Alto Car and Rs. 3 lakhs in cash out of the benefits he received after his superannuation. Her life was made miserable and for that reason she lost the desire to survive, at the same time she was apprehensive that she might be killed at the hands of the accused persons. Ultimately she was driven out from her matrimonial home by the petitioners on 9.5.2009 after assaulting her. The police case was instituted on 9.5.2009 itself on the presentation of written report by the informant. 3. Ultimately she was driven out from her matrimonial home by the petitioners on 9.5.2009 after assaulting her. The police case was instituted on 9.5.2009 itself on the presentation of written report by the informant. 3. A notice was sent to the informant opposite party No.2 Dalia Das who appeared in this petition through her counsel and filed counter-affidavit stating that all the disputes between her and the petitioners have come to an end and she had no longer grievance against them, since she already received permanent alimony of Rs. 3 lakhs from the petitioner No. 1 and subsequent thereto she and the petitioner No. 1 Rakesh Kumar Sarkar have taken divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act by their mutual consent and in that manner they have severed relationship once for all. The deponent O.P. No.2 with reference to paragraph 13 of the counter-affidavit stated that she did not want to proceed with unnecessary litigation against the petitioner No. 1 and others as it would be counter productive to her own interest in view of the fact that the dispute has already been settled between the parties and hence she was no more willing to proceed against the petitioners as her grievances had been redressed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 relied on the decision reported in 2003 (2) East Cr C 220 (SC) : (2003) 4 SCC 675 . The Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and another, settled the object in which matrimonial dispute was made under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and observed the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlement in matrimonial dis. Jutes and that any hyper technical view would be counter productive and would act against the interest of the women and against the object for which the provision of law under Section 4gB-A. IPC was enacted. 5. The Apex Court further added which reads as under : "On facts it was also noticed that there was no reasonable likelihood of the accused being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed now she has rued an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife does not support the imputations made in the FIR of the type in question. As earlier noticed now she has rued an affidavit that the FIR was registered at her instance due to temperamental differences and implied imputations. There may be many reason for not supporting the imputation. It may be either for the reason that she has resolved disputes with her husband and his other family members and as a result thereof she has again started living with her husband with whom she earlier had difference or she had willingly parted company and is living happily on her own or has married someone else on the earlier marriage having been dissolved by divorce on consent of parties or fails to support the prosecution on some other similar grounds. In such eventually there would almost be no chance of conviction. Would it then be proper to decline to exercise power of quashing on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound non- compoundable offence? The answer clearly has to be in the negative." 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners conceded that the dispute between the parties have already been resolved by severance of relationship pursuant to the decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The informant-opposite party No. 2 fairly conceded that she has already accepted permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs and. did not want to proceed further. Counter-affidavit has been rued by herself and having gone through the contents of the counter-affidavit she signed in English in presence of her identifier before the Oath Commissioner. 7. Taking into consideration the special features in the instance case that O.P. No. 2 has already settled the disputes with the petitioner No. 1 by obtaining a decree of divorce with their mutual consent and has already received permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs upon her full and final satisfaction. I find it desirable and in the interest of justice that no useful purpose is likely to be served if the criminal prosecution against the petitioners is allowed to continue in view of B.S. Joshi case (supra). 8. In the result criminal prosecution of the petitioners Rakesh Sarkar @ Rakesh Kumar Sarkar. KIishna Kumar Sarkar. I find it desirable and in the interest of justice that no useful purpose is likely to be served if the criminal prosecution against the petitioners is allowed to continue in view of B.S. Joshi case (supra). 8. In the result criminal prosecution of the petitioners Rakesh Sarkar @ Rakesh Kumar Sarkar. KIishna Kumar Sarkar. Madhuri Sarkar and Soma Roy including the order impugned dated 19.8.2009 by which cognizance of the offence was taken by the CJM. Dhanbad is quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly this petition is allowed. Petition allowed.