The court may quash FIRs based on mutual compromise when there's no likelihood of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. The matter comes up on an application filed by the petitioners for early hearing of the matter.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application (Inward No. 01/2023), the application is allowed. The matter is being heard and decided today itself.

3. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No. 100/2023 registered at Police Station Sandero, Distt. Pali for the offence under Sections 342 , 323, 354, 509 & 376 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(c) & 3(1)(e) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and entire criminal proceedings pursuant thereto, on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant-respondent No. 2 and the petitioner have already entered into compromise and on the basis of it, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 342 , 323, 354, 509 & 376 of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(e) of SC/ST Act. It is also argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the trial against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences because the same may derail the compromise arrived at between the parties.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has admitted that the parties have already entered into compromise and resolved their dispute amicably and the respondent no. 2 does not want to press the charges leveled against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Sections 342 , 323, 354, 509 and 376 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(e) of SC/ST Act.

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

7. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prashant Bhartiya v. State of Delhi & Ors., in Criminal Appeal No. 708 of 2021 decided on 30.7.2021, relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“3. Respondent No. 2 has 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, 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 20.9.2022 be decided in accordance with law.

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

8. 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 6.4.2022 (D