The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Supreme Court's guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings based on settlement, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the crime, and the impact on society.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard finally with consent of parties at admission stage.

2. The petitioners/original accused are seeking quashing of the First Information Report bearing crime No.255 of 2021 registered with Pundlik Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the parties have arrived at amicable settlement.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2/informant in both the writ petitions submit that, the parties have worked out the consent terms and those terms are placed before the Court. The petitioner no.2 - Jay Harsukhlal Chauhan (husband of respondent no.2 - Prachi) in criminal writ petition no.1088 of 2021 and respondent no.2-Prachi Jay Chauhan have fled HMP No.F-308 of 2021 for a decree of divorce on mutual consent in terms of the provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Aurangabad and the said petition is pending. It is agreed between the parties that petitioner no.2-husband Jay Chauhan has to pay an amount of Rs.21.00 Lacs towards the permanent alimony of the respondent no.2. Further, as agreed between the parties, said amount has been deposited in the account of one Mr. Sunil Vishram Chawda, who is elderly and respected person from the community. It is further agreed between the parties that petitioner no.2 Jay (husband of respondent no.2) will arrange to give Demand Draft of the said amount in the name of respondent no.2 Prachi before the Family Court, Aurangabad. Parties thus agreed to withdraw all the proceedings initiated against each other. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2/informant submits that respondent no.2 Prachi is not willing to prosecute the present complaint and she gives her consent for quashing of the FIR No.255 of 2021 registered with Pundlik Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad.

4. We have heard the learned APP for respondent/ State. We have made a specific query with the learned APP as to whether any medical certificate is collected by the investigating officer since the charge under section 307 r/w 34 of the IPC is levelled. Learned APP, on instructions submits that, as per the allegations made by respondent no.2 in her supplementary statement, on 30.4.2021 she was forcibly administered sleeping pills 20-25 in numbers, however, she has immediately vomited the contents. Learned APP, on instructions from the investigating officer, submits that respondent no.2 Prachi was neither hospitalized for that purpose nor the investigating officer has collected any certifcate because the same is not available.

5. It appears that due to intervention of the elderly and respected members from their community, parties have arrived at settlement and they have agreed to get separated permanently. Petitioner no.2 Jay Chauhan in Criminal Writ Petition no.1088 of 2021 and respondent no.2 Prachi Chauhan have already approached the family Court by fling a petition No.F-308/2021 for a decree of divorce on mutual consent.

6. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Supreme Court in para 48 has quoted para 21 of the judgment of the five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered in Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769. A five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in para 21 of the judgment, by placing reliance on the various judgments of the Supreme court, has framed the guidelines for quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground of settlement. Para 21 of the said case of Kulwinder Singh's judgment is reproduced by the Supreme Court in para 48 of the judgment in Gian Singh. Clause 21(a) which is relevant for the present discussion reads as under :-

''21. (a) Cases arising from matrimonial discord, even if other offences are introduced for aggravat