JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Deepak Kumar learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. K.Badhai the learned counsel for the opp.party No.2. 2. The petitioners No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2 is the sister in-law petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.4 is the elder brother in-law of opp. party No.2 Subhrasmita Dash. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 07.07.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir in G.R. Case No. 311 of 2012 in taking cognizance of the offences under Section 498-A/323/307/506/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and issuance of process against them which is now subjudiced in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir in S.C. No. 88 of 2012. 3. The first information report was lodged by the opp.party No.2 on 09.05.2012 before Town Police station, Bolangir on the basis of which Bolangir Town PS. Case No. 130 of 2012 was registered under Section 498-A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of D.P. Act against the petitioners and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 07.07.2012 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/323/506/307/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the meantime, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the opp.party No.2 is now staying with the petitioners and she is not interested to proceed with the case It is further contended that since the case arises out of a matrimonial dispute and the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceeding to continue and therefore, in the interest of justice, the proceeding should be quashed. In support of such contention, he relied upon the affidavit filed by the opp.party No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the opp.party No.2 supported the case of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the State has no serious objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the opp. party No.2, it indicates that due to intervention of some well wishers of both the parties, the dispute has been resolved and the parties have decided to resume their conjugal life afresh. 7. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the opp. party No.2, it indicates that due to intervention of some well wishers of both the parties, the dispute has been resolved and the parties have decided to resume their conjugal life afresh. It is further stated that the opp.party No.2 is no more interested to pursue the criminal case. 8. In view of such affidavit filed by the opp.party No.2 and taking into account the fact that the case arises out of matrimonial dispute which has been amicably settled between the parties, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B.S.Joshi and Others v. State of Haryana reported in(2003) 25 OCR(SC) 99, the proceeding in S.C. No. 88 of 2012 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir which arises out of G.R. Case No. 311 of 2012 from the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir stands quashed. 9. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is allowed. Final Result : Allowed