ORDER : Mr. P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. for quashment of entire proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No. 516/2001 (State of Rajasthan v. Devraj Singh & Ors.) pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate. Udaipur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’). 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that first petitioner-Devraj Singh entered into matrimony with the respondent-complainant on 06.03.1994 at village Kotharia, Nathdwara, District Rajsamand. The marital bliss between spouses was short lived and in the month of August 1996, some acrimony/sense of discord developed between the spouses. Eventually the complainant left the matrimonial home on 12.12.1996 and later on lodged FIR against the petitioners castigating them for offences punishable under Section 498-A and 406 IPC. Upon conclusion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet and the proceedings in the matter are pending before the learned trial Court. In the interregnum, some developments have taken place having ramification on the pending criminal case. As a matter of fact the dispute between first petitioner and the respondent-Complainant also culminated into a petition for dissolution of marriage inasmuch as the first petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 before Family Court, Gwalior. Precisely, the first petitioner has taken shelter to two grounds for dissolution of marriage namely mental and physically cruelty by the respondent-complainant and desertion. The learned family Court, upon conclusion of the trial, decided both the issues in favour of first petitioner and against the respondent-complainant and by its judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009 annulled the marriage. 3. Being aggrieved by the verdict of the learned Family Court, Gwalior, respondent-complainant filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, by its judgment dated 24.10.2013, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned family Court and directed first petitioner-husband to pay permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 15 lacs (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Only) as full and final payment to the respondent-complainant in four equal installments within a span of one year. It appears that feeling dismayed with the quantum of permanent alimony determined by the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, first petitioner approached the Supreme Court but his that effort proved abortive and the S.L.P. was dismissed. It appears that feeling dismayed with the quantum of permanent alimony determined by the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, first petitioner approached the Supreme Court but his that effort proved abortive and the S.L.P. was dismissed. After dismissal of the S.L.P the entire amount of permanent alimony was paid by the first petitioner to the respondent-complainant in four installments. The first petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) on 01.05.2014 followed by amount of same denomination on 19.09.2014. Later on, on 19.03.2015 Rs. 7 lac (Rupees Seven Lacs Only) was paid and lastly, on 06.05.2015 the remaining amount of Rs. 3 lac (Rupees Three Lacs Only) was paid. As much, the entire amount of permanent alimony has been paid to the respondent-complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of dissolution of marriage between the spouses and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, Gwalior, affirmed by the Division Bench at M.P High Court, per se, prosecution for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners is now not sustainable. Learned counsel would contend that in view of subsequent ‘developments and changed circumstances now it is not worthwhile to continue proceedings in the pending criminal case and in the interest of justice proceedings are liable to be annulled. Lastly, learned counsel has urged that the petitioners have handed over entire Stridhan of the respondent- complainant and the same has also been taken note of by the Family Court, Gwalior and further acknowledged by the respondent-complainant is sufficient to prove perpetual settlement of dispute between rival parties. It is with these arguments learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that now since both the pouses are living separately and want to live in peace the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is every likelihood that trial before the learned trial Court may have been completed by efflux of time, and therefore, no interference in the matter is callet for. 6. Responding to this submission of learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated at bar that trial is still going on before the learned trial Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor, perused the materials available on record and examined the matter theradbare. 8. 6. Responding to this submission of learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated at bar that trial is still going on before the learned trial Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor, perused the materials available on record and examined the matter theradbare. 8. Having considered the submissions made at bar in conjunction with the relevant material available on record, in my opinion, after dissolution of marriage between spouses and a categorical finding of the learned Family Court duly affirmed by the Division Bench of M.P. High Court, it is rather difficult to comprehend that respondent-complainant left matrimonial home because crelty was perpetrated on her by the petitioners. Findings, recorded by the learned Family Court, Gwalior, in this behalf, reads in vernacular under- 26 - vukosfndk us vius dFku esa mlds }kjk vkosnd ds lkFk [kjkc O;ogkj fd;s tkus dk ‘kiFk esa [kaMu fd;k gS vkSj vius dFku ds izfrijh{k.k esa mijksDrkuqlkj dFku esa Lohd`fr izdV dh gSA vukosfndk dk f’konku flag }kjk vukosfndk ds O;ogkj ds lEcU/k esa iz-ih- 1 dk ys[k fy[kk ftldh LohdkjksfDr vukosfndk us vius dFku esa dh gS& vkosnd vkSj mlds ifjokj ds fo:) fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ ;g Hkh vius dFku esa fjiksVZ Mh-&5 ds :i esa is’k dh gSA mlesa vkosnd ds dFku esa fd;s x;s ijh{k.k esa o mlds lk{kh vkyksd [kj nj ls fd;s x;s foLr`r ijh{k.k esa dksbZ rF; lkeus ugha vk;s gS fd vkosnd vkSj mlds lk{kh vkyksd [kjnj ds fd;s x;s vukosfndk }kjk dh xbZ Øwjrk ds lEcU/k esa fd;s x;s dFku esa fo’okl fd;k tk ldsa vukosfndk }kjk vkosnd vkSj mlds ifjokj ds lnL; x.k ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ xbZA ftlls vkonsd vkSj mlds ifjokj ds lnL; x.k ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djkbZ xbZA ftlls vkonsd vkSj mlds ifjokj dks ekufld vkSj ‘kkjhfjd Øzwjrk gksuk lkfcr gksrk gSA vukosfndk }kjk vkosnd ds lkFk Xokfy;j esa jgrs gq;s vkosnd }kjk mDr dFku ls vukosnd us mls mlds lkFk mDr vuqlkj] dzwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k gSA mldh iqf”V vukosfndk ds dkdk f’konku }kjk fyf[kr ij iz-ih-1 vukosfndk }kjk vkosnu ds lkFk fd;s dzwjrk iw.kZ O;ogkj dh iqf”V gksrh gSA vukosfndk ml lwpuki= izkIr gksus ds ckn Hkh vkosnd ds lkFk nkEiR; thou fuokZg djus ugha vkbZA blls Hkh dzwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj dh iqf”V gksrh gSA vukosfndk ml lwpuk i= izkIr gksus ds ckn Hkh vkosnd ds lkFk nkEiR; thou fuokZg djus ugh vkbZA blls Hkh dzwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj lkfcr gksrk gSA vukosfndk us /kkjk 125 Hkj.k&iks”k.k ds vkosnui= esa vkosnd ds lkFk jguk vlaHko izdV fd;k gS vkSj o”kZ 1996 ls yxkrkj vkosnd ls i`Fkd jgh gS vkosnd ds dFkukuqlkj vukosfndk us dksbZ ‘kkjhfjd lEcU/k Lfkkfir ugha gksus fn;s gSA vkosnd ds dFku vkSj lk{kh ds dFku ls vukosfndk }kjk vkosnd ds lkFk Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa] vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kj fn;s x;s rdZ vkSj izLrqr mHk; i{k dh lk{; dks ns[krs gq;s] izLrqr ys[kh lk{; dk lw{e foospu djrs gq;s vukosfndk dk O;ogkj vkosnd ds izfr Øzwjrkiw.kZ gS vkSj vkosnd ds fo}ku U;k; n`”Vkar dk gokyk fn;k gSA ftlls vkosnd@oknh ds i{k dks cy feyrk gSA 27- vkosnu dh vkSj ls izLrqr ys[kh lk{; vkSj ekSf[kd lk{; vkSj vukosfndk dh vkSj ls izLrqr ys[kh vkSj ekSf[kd lk{; ds lw{e foospu ls vkosnd ds lkFk vukosfndk dk O;ogkj Øzwjrk iw.kZ jgk gS ;g lkfcr gqvk gSA vr% okniz’u dza- 1 vkosnd ds i{k esa vukosfndk ds fo:) ldkjkRed gka esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 28- okniz’u dza- 2 ds lEcU/k esa vukosfndk us vkosnd vkSj mlds ifjokj ds fo:) ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ dh gS vkSj og izdj.k fopkjk/khu gS rnuqlkj okn iz’u dzi-2 dk fujkdj.k fd;k tkrk gSA 29- okn iz’u dz-3 ds lEcU/k esa vkosnd us vukosfndk }kjk mDr vuqlkj dzwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k tkuk lkfcr fd;k gSA vkosnd us vius dFku ls lkfcr fd;k gS fd vukosfndk us vkosnd ds lkFk ‘kkjhfjd lEcU/k Lfkkfir ugha djus fn;s gSA mlds }kjk nkEiR; lEcU/k Lfkkfir djus ls badkj fd;k gSA ;g vkosnd dh lk{; ls lkfcr gqvk gSA okn iz’u dz-3 vkosnd ds i{k esa vukosfndk ds fo:) ldkjkRed gka esa fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA 9. Affirming the said finding of learned Family Court, Gwalior, Division Bench has observed as under- From the facts in hand and narrated above, it is quite explicit that there has been in fact and in effect no relationship between the two, mental or physical and there appeared totally incompatible behavioural difference between the two. Relationship is strained. The love is lost and emotions are dried up between the two. On the contrary, there is a typical hostility and science of vengeance in the attitude and conduct of the parties as though from the year 1994 till March, 1999 appellant has made serious allegations against respondent and his parents to the effect that she was ill-treated, abused, physically assaulted, attempted to be burnt, demanded dowry in each etc. but at no point of time she ever made any complaint before any forum and at no place including her parents place where she has stayed most of the time during period of 1994 to 1999. This shows that the allegations made in the FIR lodged after three years of marriage on 03.07.1999 under Sections 498A, 494, 323 and 504 of IOPC at Police Station Surajpol are prima facie more of frustration than of substance and this appears to have been as a sequel to the ex parte decree passed on 5.5.1998 and the second marriage of the respondent solemnized on 17.07.1998. Such course of action adopted by the appellant levelling serious allegations against her husband/respondent and in-laws having status in society certainlyu must have caused mental agony, social idignation, persecution and demanding sustainability in f society.” Finally Division Bench held - In view of the enunciation of judge made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as regards cruelty not defined under the Hindu Marriage Act and applied to the facts in hand, we are of the considered opinion that no interference’ with the judgment and decree for divorce passed by the learned trial court is called for. 10. After dissolution of marriage and in compliance judgment of Division Bench payment of entire permanent alimony by the first petitioner to the respondent- complainant also makes it crystal clear that now both the spouses want to live in peace and therefore allowing criminal proceedings to continue in the matter may not be congenial for both the parties nor the same would be in the interest of justice. A very vital fact that despite sending many notices complainant has not responded and even after service of notice no endeavour is made on her behalf to contest the matter has also made this Court to believe that now she has lost interest in the matter after dissolution of marriage. Acceptance of entire amount of permanent alimony and her stridhan by the complianant without any demure further fortifies the belief of this Court that rival parties have settled all the disputes perpetually. 11. Therefore, in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Court feel inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction ex debito justitiae for doing real and substantial justice in the matter for the administration of which alone Courts exist. 12. The upshot of above discussion is that the instant criminal misc. petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in the Criminal Regular Case No. 516/2001 pending before learned trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside.