The court established that compromises between parties can lead to the quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when both parties agree not to pursue the matter.

ORDER

1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.c. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.76/2022 registered at Police Station Vijaypur, District Chittorgarh and all consequential proceedings in pursuance thereto for offences under 143, 447, 452, 342, 354, 365, 323 & 427 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of POCSO Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents No.2 jointly submit that the petitioner and the complainant have entered into compromise in the on-going criminal proceedings. It is thus submitted that the parties are not inclined to proceed further in this matter.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the material available on record.

4. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya Vs. State of Delhi & Ors. in Criminal Appeal No.708 of 2021 decided on 30.07.2021, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

'3. Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint alleging, inter alia, that the Appellant had committed an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. It is undisputed that both the Accused (Appellant) and Respondent No. 2 were living together for a considerable while. The complainant's allegation is that the Appellant duped her by misrepresenting to her that he is divorced. The complainant, according to the accused, is not unmarried and her marriage subsists.

4. During pendency of the proceedings, the parties were referred to mediation having regard to the fact that a child was born in the meanwhile (i.e. in the year 2018). As a consequence, a mediated settlement limited to the maintenance and upkeep of the child was arrived at by them.

5. Having regard to these facts and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant - who does not dispute that this may not be an appropriate case for pursuing the prosecution further, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings must be quashed.

6. In the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside; the FIR (No. 616) and all consequent proceedings be quashed. It is, however, made clear that this order will not come in the way or in any manner prejudice the contentions of the parties in any other pending proceedings, which shall 20-09-2022 be decided in accordance with law.

7. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.'

5. Learned counsels for the petitioner has submitted the following order for consideration passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.4119/2021 decided on 06.04.2022 (Dhabba Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), which reads as follows:-

'1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accusedpetitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.94/2021 registered at Police Station Gida, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the I.T. Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of investigation, the petitioner and the complainant have entered into a compromise and thus, no dispute remains pending between them and the complainant does not wish to continue with the present litigation.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the compromise in question has been produced before the Investigating Officer, who has verified the factum of compromise and the same has been executed without any force or coercion.

4. Learned counsel submits that the complaint in question came be to be lodged by the complainant on account of an audio of the conversation between the petitioner and complainant getting viral and now the parties have decided to resolve the dispute having regard to the fact that the petitioner and complainant are close relatives.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant also accepts the fact of the compromise and submits that even the husband of the prosecutrix/complainant has sig