ORDER Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1085 of 2011 including the order dated 10.1.2012, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. It appears that a complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2, in which it was alleged that her marriage was solemnized with the son of the petitioner namely Syed Zoheb Ahmed on 2.10.2009. It is alleged that after marriage, there was demand of dowry made by the in-laws and on account of non fulfilment of same, opposite party no. 2 was left at her parental house at Ranchi and her ornaments were also kept by the accused persons. It is further alleged that repeated demands of Rs.25 lacs were made and ultimately on 22.9.2010 the accused persons had assaulted, abused and humiliated the opposite party no. 2, which resulted in her institution of complaint case. After the complaint case was filed, inquiry was conducted under section 202 Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as her witnesses and cognizance was taken by the learned court below for the offence under sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the matter has been compromised between the parties, for which he has referred to a joint compromise petition filed in the petition itself. It has further been submitted that terms and conditions of the compromise has been fulfilled as the amount of Rs.1lac and the subsequent demand of Rs.2 lac has also been paid to the opposite party no. 2. It has also been submitted that the maintenance case filed by the opposite party no. 2 being Maintenance Case No. 174 of 2011 has been withdrawn by the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel submits that since the matter has been compromised, entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 1085 of 2011 be quashed and set aside. 5. It has also been submitted that the maintenance case filed by the opposite party no. 2 being Maintenance Case No. 174 of 2011 has been withdrawn by the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel submits that since the matter has been compromised, entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 1085 of 2011 be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 has accepted the factum of compromise and has submitted that subsequent amount of Rs.2 lacs has been received by the opposite party no. 2 a few days back. It has further been submitted that opposite party no. 2 does not have any grievance against any of the accused persons and therefore she does not have any objection if the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 1085 of 2011 is quashed and set aside. 6. Terms and conditions of the agreement, which are reflected in the said petition, suggest that initially the opposite party no. 2 was to be paid Rs.1 lac at the stage of withdrawal of Maintenance Case No. 174 of 2011. Subsequent amount of Rs.2 lac was to be paid after the case is withdrawn by the opposite party no. 2. Since the said terms and conditions of the compromise was found to be vague, this Court by an order dated 19.1.2017 directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to take instruction as to whether the petitioner is ready to make payment of Rs.2 lac before consideration is made with respect to compromise arrived at between the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that adhering to the direction of this Court, in the order dated 19.1.2017, the amount of Rs.2 lacs has already been paid to the opposite party no. 2 by way of a demand draft, which fact has been accepted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 7. Since the dispute between the parties have finally been settled, it would not be proper to continue with the criminal prosecution against the accused persons. 2 by way of a demand draft, which fact has been accepted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 7. Since the dispute between the parties have finally been settled, it would not be proper to continue with the criminal prosecution against the accused persons. In view of the discussions made herein above, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1085 of 2011 including the order dated 10.1.2012, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under sections 498A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of.