The court emphasized the need to evaluate the nature and gravity of the offences, the impact on society, and the possibility of conviction when exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC to quash criminal proceedings based on a genuine compromise between the parties.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 201/15 dated 1.10.2015, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of IPC, registered with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveal that marriage inter-se petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 23.10.2007 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of their wedlock, one female child was also born, but since certain differences crept in inter-se respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1, they started living separately in the year 2011. On 1.1.2015, respondent No.2 lodged FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings against petitioner No.1, husband of respondent No.2 and petitioner No.2, mother in law of respondent No.2, alleging therein that petitioners, besides demanding dowry, maltreated her and as such, appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against them. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them by way of compromise placed on record. Compromise placed on record reveals that both the parties i.e. respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1, by way of mutual consent have already dissolved their marriage as is evident from order dated 17.12.2020, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

3. Pursuant to notice issued on 22.3.2021, parties have come present in the Court. Respondents No.2 Smt. Suchi Sharma, who is duly represented by Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate, on oath states that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably vide compromise dated 10.12.2019, which also forms part and parcel of order dated 14.12.2019 passed by the National Lok Adalat. She states that since marriage interse them has been dissolved by way of mutual consent in terms of order dated 17.12.2020, she shall have no objection in case FIR No. 201/15 dated 1.10.2015, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 of IPC, registered with Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, are ordered to be quashed and set-aside. She endorses her signatures on the compromise. Her statement is taken on record.

4. Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, having heard aforesaid statement made by the complainant fairly states that in view of the amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties, no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR sought to be quashed as well as consequent proceedings pending before the court below are allowed to sustain and as such, prayer made in the instant petition may be accepted. Otherwise also, chances of conviction of the petitioners are very remote/bleak in view of the aforesaid statement having been made by respondent No.2.

5. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, this Court deems it fit to consider the present petition in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, whereby Hon'ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred above clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon'ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under