The importance of compromise in resolving matrimonial disputes and the court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings in such cases.

JUDGMENT

Vibha Kankanwadi. J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

2. The petitioners have invoked the powers of this Court under Article 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to quash the First Information Report (Hereinafter referred as "FIR") bearing No. 00/2017 dated 14-07-2017 registered with Chalisgaon Police Station, District Jalgaon, subsequently renumbered as FIR No. 114 of 2017 dated 02-09-2017 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 354, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner No.1 got married with respondent No.2 on 17-12-2014. There is no issue born to them. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents of petitioner No.1. Petitioners No.4 and 5 are the sisters of petitioner No.1 and daughters of petitioners No.2 and 3.

4. Respondent No.2 had filed report with the Police Station stating that, at the time of marriage her father had given 30 Tolas gold ornaments and domestic articles like fridge, television, laptop etc. In all her father had spent about Rs. 20 to 25 lakhs on the marriage. After marriage she went to cohabit with petitioner No.1. She has stated that, she was treated properly for about two months only after the marriage, but thereafter she was harassed by all the petitioners. Petitioners No.4 and 5 are the married sisters of petitioner No.1; but they used to give phone call to petitioners No.1 and 3 daily. It is stated that, petitioner No.2 had ill-eye on her. Petitioner No.2 runs an educational institute by name "Chaitanya Vidya Mandir". Petitioner No.1 is Head Master of the school and petitioner No.3 is the Chairman. Petitioner No.2 had tried to outrage the modesty of the informant. All the petitioners were asking her to bring amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- from her father in order to get an approval to their educational institution. She was unable to fulfill the demand, and therefore, she was driven out of the house. After her maternal uncle and father intervened, she was left at the matrimonial home, however at that time petitioner No.1 told her father that, if he would give amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- then only he will allow the informant to cohabit. When she had tried to disclose the fact about the ill-acts of petitioner No.2 to petitioners No.1 and 3, they assaulted her, took away her ornaments and driven her out of the house. When again her relatives took her for cohabitation on 13-07-2017 at that time petitioners No.1 and 3 refused to take her and told that petitioner No.1 want divorce. Thereafter, the informant had lodged the FIR.

5. The petitioners have contended that, unfortunately the marital ties between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 did not remain peaceful and culminated into unhappy being. Several litigations were filed by the informant and petitioner No.1 against each other in different courts. However, they have now resolved to bring an end to all the disputes between them. They both had filed a joint Hindu Marriage Petition No.362 of 2017 under Section 13 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Dhule, for divorce by mutual consent, accordingly the order has been passed. In view of amicable settlement, it is stated that, the informant has no desire to go ahead with the report and she has no objection to quash the proceedings. The petitioners have therefore prayed for quashing the FIR filed against them.

6. The affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent No.2 giving no objection.

7. It will not be out of place to mention here that, when the matter was taken up by this Court on 08-02-2018 and even the order was dictated, the parties went out of the Court and there was dispute between them outside the court hall. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 came inside the Court and told that, she is withdrawing the consent, and therefore, this Court sim