The court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when parties reach an amicable settlement, preventing unnecessary harassment.

ORDER :

1. Learned advocate Mr.Rahul Dholakia states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the original complainant and thereby, seeks permission to file his Vakalatnama, which is granted.

2. RULE. Learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since it is jointly stated at the bar by learned advocates on both the sides that the dispute between the parties has been resolved amicably, this matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

4. By way of this successive petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), the applicant/s have prayed to quash and set aside the complaint being CR No. II-136 of 2016 registered with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City, for the offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Criminal Case No.164 of 2017 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

5. Going through the compilation of the petition, it appears that complaint is filed at the instance of respondent No.2. It appears that complainant is a housewife and presently residing along with his father. It is alleged that the Respondent No. 2 and applicant No.1 got married on 30.11.2008 at Rajkot as per Hindu rites and rituals. It is alleged that the Respondent No. 2 belongs to Jain (Vaniya) Community whereas applicant No.1 belongs to Sindhi Lohana Community. In the said FIR that out of the wedlock one baby girl viz. Ravya was born. The Respondent No. 2 and applicant No.1 at the first instance registered their Marriage and thereafter got married as per the customary rites. It appears that applicant No.1 is having a business of hardware and also running a factory. It is also alleged that after the marriage Respondent No. 2, she came to reside in her matrimonial home with accused Nos. 1 to 3. It is also alleged that initially in the first year of marriage the marital life was going good but thereafter allegedly the applicant No.1 is having extra marital affair and used to hangout with other woman and used to have conversation frequently and used to come back home very late in the night. Thereafter, the accused-husband has mentally and physically harassed her and demanded the dowry from the complainant. It is further alleged that accused No.4 i.e. the uncle-in-law of the Respondent No. 2 who is residing in the neighbour house, used to visit the house and used to criticize Respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that Accused No. 5 and 6 were residing at the address as mentioned above in Mumbai. It is further alleged that the Accused No. 5 & 6 used to visit the matrimonial house and instead of opposing the illicit relation of applicant No.1 with other woman, they were provoking accused No. 1, 2 and 3 against Complainant. It is further alleged that the accused No. 5 and 6 used to tell the Respondent No. 2 that men can do anytime, but being a woman, we have to handle the house by ignoring such acts. That, allegedly, due to such conduct, the applicant No.1 used to beat the Respondent No. 2 time and again. The applicant No.1 sent the Respondent No. 2 to her parental home and since then, no arrangements have been made for the maintenance of the Respondent No. 2 and daughter Ravya till now, and no care has been taken by applicant No.1-husband. The husband applicant No.1 had come to the shop of the Respondent No. 2's father and gave death threats to Respondent No. 2's father. It is also alleged that the, accused Nos.2 and 3 have not taken any care of the Respondent No. 2 and even though the Respondent No. 2 have made many efforts to reconcile disputes, accused parties were not willing to keep the Respondent No. 2 in their home, so thereafter the Respondent No. 2 issued a legal notice through her lawyer, and to which except for applicant No.1, no one has replied. Later, allegedly the Respondent No. 2 cal