JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Saumya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance arising out of Complaint Case No.5970/2019, whereby, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners vide order dated 01.03.2021 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 3. Ms. Saumya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of opposite party no.2 respectively. She further submits that during the pendency of this petition, the matter was referred for mediation between the parties by the court below while hearing the anticipatory bail petition and in mediation, both the parties have come to a settlement. She also submits that the terms and conditions of settlement has been brought on record by way of filing supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioners, which is contained in Annexure-3. She further submits that as per the terms and conditions, the payment has been made and ornaments have been returned to opposite party no.2. She also submits that the other cases including the maintenance case have been withdrawn and this case is also required to be closed in view of the settlement between the parties in the mediation. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Jai Mohan Mishra has appeared suo motu on behalf of opposite party no.2 and he submits that counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite party no.2. He also accepts the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. He refers to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit and submits that nothing remains in the complaint case and opposite party no.2 has got no grievance left and all the terms and conditions of the settlement has been fulfilled. He further submits that both the parties have agreed for mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. He further submits that both the parties have agreed for mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 5. In view of the above facts and considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the settlement which has been brought on record by way of filing supplementary affidavit and also considering that this matter is arising out of matrimonial dispute, it appears that both the parties have compromised the matter and they have agreed for mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. There is no societal interest involved in this matter and to allow to continue the case in the court below, will amount to abuse of process of law. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and further looking to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 , it is a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 01.03.2021 arising out of Complaint Case No.5970/2019, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi is, hereby, quashed. 7. Consequently, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.