JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been taken up through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 2. By order dated 07.09.2015 notice has been issued upon the O.P. No. 2. Notice has been effected upon O.P. No. 2 as per office note dated 15.10.2015. Now, this is year, 2022. Inspite of notice, O.P. No. 2 has not appeared as yet. It appears that O.P. No. 2 has lost interest. 3. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order dated 17.01.2012 passed in P.C.R. Case No. 158 of 2006, corresponding to T.R. 582 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka. 4. Complainant has filed complaint petition alleging therein that on 17.01.2005 the marriage of the son of the complainant was solemnized at Deoghar and her daughter-in-law, Sudha Rani was brought at residential house at Dumka. Thereafter she became pregnant for which treatment was going on but in the meantime accused no. 1 visited the house of complainant on 10.01.2006 for vidagiri without assigning any reason then the complainant told him that her daughter-in-law is under medical treatment. On 18.03.2006 the accused no. 1 and 2 again came at the house of the complainant and they tried to compel for vidagiri of daughter-in-law of complainant but the vidagiri has not been done. Thereafter on 04.04.2006 accused nos. 1 to 3 along with three unknown persons came at her house in a maruti van without number along with jeep of Dumka Town Police Station and forcibly entered into the house and took away Smt. Sudha Rani with them. It is further alleged that accused nos. 4 and 5 entered in the bedroom of Sudha Rani and took away ornaments. On protest, several persons gathered there. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never visited the house of the complainant either in capacity of police official or in personal capacity. It is further alleged that accused nos. 4 and 5 entered in the bedroom of Sudha Rani and took away ornaments. On protest, several persons gathered there. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never visited the house of the complainant either in capacity of police official or in personal capacity. He further submits that through on request of Shri Chandreswar Prasad Naryan Mishra, Shri Devendra Prasad Singh (Shri D.P. Singh) Sub Inspector Dumka Town Police Station and one Assistant Sub Inspector namely, Shri Awadhesh Kumar Sinha (Shri A.K. Sinha) visited the house of the complainant in capacity of the police officials and on that basis the instant complaint has been filed against the accused persons including the petitioner in confusion and at the instance of son of the complainant who was posted as an Assistant in Civil Court, Dumka. He further submits that the petitioner has got no relationship with the O.P. No.2. He further submits that O.P. No. 2 has settled the dispute and on the basis of compromise the trial court vide judgement dated 28.07.2014 acquitted the accused persons. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the judgement dated 28.07.2014 whereby other co-accused persons have been acquitted on the basis of compromise, the petitioner has got no relationship with O.P. No. 2 inspite of that petitioner has been implicated, allowing the proceeding to continu, will amount abuse of process of law. 7. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding including order dated 17.01.2012 passed in P.C.R. Case No. 158 of 2006, corresponding to T.R. 582 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dumka, so far as petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. 8. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.