The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of caution in quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, particularly in cases involving heinous and serious offences, and the distinction between such offences and those with a predominantly civil character, arising out of matrimonial relationships or family disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, prayer has been made by the petitioners-accused for quashing of FIR No. 23 of 2021, dated 04.08.2021, registered at Women Police Station, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. under Sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code alongwith consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law, on the basis of compromise arrived inter se parties.

2. Precisely the case of the petitioners, as emerge from the record are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2 (hereinafter, ‘complainant’), who alleged that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1-Ramit Anand Sharma on 04.02.2014, but immediately after marriage, her husband alongwith other family members started harassing her on account of bringing less dowry. Complainant further alleged that her husband alongwith other family members not only abused her but also gave beatings. Since petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were unable to live together for long, respondent No.2 was compelled to live separately with her parents. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be instituted against petitioners, who are husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.2. Though after completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties have entered into compromise and resolved to settle the dispute inter-se them amicably. In the aforesaid background, petitioners-accused have approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of FIR as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent court of law.

3. Though pursuant to order dated 25.05.2023, respondent-State has not filed the status report but respondent No.2 has also come present in Court and is duly represented by Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Advocate. She states on oath that she of her own volition and without any external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioners-accused, whereby parties have resolved to settle the dispute inter-se them. She further states that she alongwith her husband i.e. petitioner No.1 has filed joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent in the competent Court of Law coupled with the fact that petitioners have apologized for their misbehavior and undertaken not to repeat such act in future, as such she shall have no objection in case FIR alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges framed under Section 498-A against them. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, she also admits her signature thereupon.

4. Having heard the statement made on oath by respondent No.2- complainant, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General states that no fruitful purpose will be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings are allowed to sustain. He fairly states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioner are remote and bleak, on account of statement made by complainant, as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and FIR in question alongwith consequential proceedings is quashed and set aside and petitioners are acquitted.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have decided to get their marriage dissolved by mutual consent in terms of compromise arrived inter se the parties. Petitioner No.1 has agreed to pay Rs. 22,00,000/- as permanent alimony to respondent No.2, out of which Rs.10,00,000/- was paid at the time of first motion before learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Family Court) Hamipur, and Rs. 6,00,000/- has been paid today by way