The court emphasized the need to evaluate the nature and gravity of the offence, the possibility of conviction, and the impact on society while considering the quashing of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of complaint dated 13.10.2015 filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Annexure P-1) as well as consequent proceedings pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District Nahan, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that marriage inter se respondent No.1, Ms. Rajani Devi and respondent No.3, Sh. Rahul Sharma, was solemnized on 13th May, 2013 as per Hindu customs and rights, however, since they were unable to get along for considerable time, respondent No.1 started residing separately w.e.f. 12th November, 2014. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'Act') against the petitioners as well as respondent No.3, who happened to be her in-laws and husband respectively. Though, complaint, as referred hereinabove, is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District Nahan, H.P., but vide order dated 24.5.2016 (Annexure P-3) learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District Nahan, H.P., granted interim maintenance of Rs.7000/- per month in favour of respondents No.1 and 2.

3. Respondent No.3, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 24.5.2016 (Annexure P-3), preferred Criminal Revision No.22-Cr.R/10 of 2016 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District Nahan, H.P., who vide judgment dated 29.4.2017 (Annexure P-4), dismissed the revision petition, as a consequence of which, order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District Nahan, H.P, awarding the interim maintenance, came to be upheld.

4. Respondent No.3, being aggrieved and dissatisfied the aforesaid judgment dated 29.4.2017 (Annexure P-4), preferred Cr.MMO No.242 of 2017 before this Court, wherein respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 agreed to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, but it appears that compromise arrived inter se parties before this Court could not be given effect to because of adamant attitude of the parties. In view of the subsequent developments, respondent No.1 got the complaint filed by her under Section 12 of the Act revived as per the liberty granted to her by this Court while disposing of the Cr.MMO No.242 of 2017 vide judgment dated 25.8.2017. In the aforesaid background, petitioners have approached this Court, seeking therein quashment of complaint as well as consequent proceedings pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District Nahan, H.P.

5. On 17.6.2019, this Court having noticed the controversy inter se parties, deemed it fit to summon both the parties to the Court, so that possibility, if any, of amicable settlement inter se them, is explored. On 8.7.2019, respondent No.1 expressed her unwillingness/inability to reside with her husband respondent No.3 and stated before this Court that she is ready for one time settlement. This Court on the request of learned counsel representing the parties, adjourned the matter for some time on 8.7.2019, enabling the parties to settle the terms and conditions of amicable settlement. This Court was informed that as per agreed terms, respondent No.3 would pay lump sum amount of Rs. 2.50 lac to respondent No.1, Ms. Rajni Devi, who in turn would deposit the same in the name of her minor daughter, namely Ananya (Respondent No.2).

6. On 19.8.2019, petitioners who had come present in Court also brought the FDR, amounting to Rs. 2.50 lac made in the name of respondent No.2, but since respondent No.1 was not present on that day, matter could not proceed further. Today, respondent No.1 has come present in Court. Both respondents No.1 and 3 have stated on oath that they of their ow