ORDER :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of present petition filed under S. 482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 287, dated 11.9.2020 under Ss. 498-A, 406, 506 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-1)

2. Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveals that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No. 2, who alleged that marriage of respondent No. 2 and the petitioner No. 1 was solemnised on 10.10.2018 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of wedlock, no issue was born. It is further averred that father of respondent No. 2 has already expired prior to her marriage and marriage expenses of respondent No. 2 were borne by the widowed mother of respondent No. 2. As per respondent No. 2, after three days of marriage, petitioner No. 1 telephonically called her mother that respondent No. 2 is feeling pain in her stomach and asked her to take respondent No. 2 to Nalagarh. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 1 refused to keep respondent No. 2 with him and left her at her mother's house at Nalagarh. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 asked mother of respondent No. 2 to get her checked at Nalagarh and then promised to take her back but later on he totally refused to take back the respondent No. 2. It is further alleged that petitioners asked respondent No. 2 to bring Rs. 3.00 Lakh to purchase furniture and in case of failure, threatened with divorce. In the aforesaid background, FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the petitioners. Police completed the investigation and filed Challan in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, where matter is pending and now is fixed for 29.11.2021. However, in the meantime, parties have entered into a compromise dated 22.7.2021 (Annexure P-2), whereby respondent No. 2 and the petitioners have amicably settled their dispute.

3. On 9.8.2021, while issuing notice to the respondents, this court also ordered respondent No. 2 to come present in the court, so as to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the compromise entered into between the parties. Learned Additional Advocate General was also directed to ascertain the factum of compromise, if any, entered inter se parties.

4. Pursuant to order dated 9.8.2021, respondent No. 2 has come present in the court and is duly represented by Mr. Nitish Negi, Advocate. Respondent No. 2- Deepika Rana, on oath states that she, without any external pressure, of her own volition has entered into compromise with the petitioners, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter se them and she shall have no objection in case FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings is quashed alongwith consequent proceedings pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh and further petitioners are acquitted. She has identified her signatures on the compromise. Her statement is taken on record.

5. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General after hearing the statement of the respondent No. 2/complainant, states that since petitioners and respondent No. 2/complainant have compromised the matter, there are bleak chances of conviction and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in case criminal proceedings lodged at the behest of respondent No. 2 are allowed to continue, hence, respondent-State shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the accused for quashing of the FIR in question alongwith consequential proceedings, is accepted..

6. The question which now needs consideration is whether FIR in question can be ordered to be quashed w