JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 30 of 2020, dated 27.10.2020, registered under Sections 376, 323, 451 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short ‘IPC’) at Women Police Station Dharamshala, District Kangra HP and quashing of proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto pending in the concerned Court.

2. Petitioner No.1 Rajneesh Kumari is complainant, who is present in Court today and vide separate statement on oath, she has stated that she is now wife of Shri Pankaj Sharma, petitioner No.2, and earlier he was married to Jeena Rani but their relations with each other were not cordial which resulted in filing of petition for divorce and registration of FIR and during separation from his first wife, petitioner No.2 Pankaj had come in her contract and they have decided to marry each other and started living together. It is further stated by her that there was delay in finalization of divorce petition filed by petitioner for dissolution of his earlier marriage with Jeena Rani and during that period, misunderstanding had cropped up between them, which resulted into lodging of FIR No. 30 of 2020 in October, 2020 in Women Police Station Dharamshala and at that time, she was under impression that petitioner No.2 Pankaj had cheated her and was not keen to solemnize marriage with her, but, later on from circumstances as well as conversation with petitioner No.2 everything was clear and ultimately divorce petition for dissolution of earlier marriage filed by petitioner was allowed with mutual consent of parties and that marriage was dissolved in December, 2020 and thereafter, petitioner had solemnized marriage with her on 29th December, 2020 in Pracheen Guga Marhi, Rama Krishan Mandir, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh and thereafter they are residing as husband and wife under one roof. She has also stated that now it is clear to her that delay in solemnizing the marriage was for the reason that earlier marriage of petitioner No.2 was not dissolved but under mistaken of belief being cheated, she had lodged the above said FIR and now she is residing happily with petitioner No.2 and in case criminal proceedings are continued in pursuant to FIR then her family life will be destroyed and therefore, she does not intend to proceed further in criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner No.2 and thus, she has decided and agreed to pray for withdrawal/quashing of above said FIR and a compromise deed (Annexure P-8) to this effect was reduced into writing between them which has been duly signed by her and she has also endorsed her signatures on compromise deed and further stated that, she has entered into the compromise with Pankaj petitioner No.2 out of her free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc.

3. Petitioner No. 2 Pankaj is present in Court today and vide separate statement, he has stated that he has heard statement of complainant, who is now his wife, and endorsed the same to be true and correct. He has stated that lodging of FIR was on account of miscommunication, misunderstanding mistaken apprehension and now he has undertaken to take care of his wife and keep her happy in future. He has endorsed that compromise, duly signed by him, is out of his free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc.

4. Quashing of FIR in present petition has been prayed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, photocopy whereof has been placed on record, which is duly signed by parties. Both petitioners have endorsed the compromise.

5. In reply, filed on behalf of respondent/State, quashing of FIR has been opposed on the ground that petitioner No.2 has been charge sheeted for commission of grave and heinous offences under Sections 376, 323, 451 and 506 IPC and there is every likelihood of his conviction before the trial Court and if present petition is allowed the whole practice and investigat