The court may quash FIRs in matrimonial disputes when the parties have reached a compromise, preventing abuse of legal processes.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BNSS’) seeking quashing of FIR No. 3 of 2018, dated 15.5.2018, registered under Sections 498-A, 406, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Women Police Station, Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in view of the compromise, having been effected, between the petitioners and respondent No. 4.

2. According to the petitioners, FIR in question was registered against them at the instance of respondent No. 4, due to matrimonial dispute, having been arisen between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4.

3. After registration of the FIR, the criminal machinery swung into motion. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. was submitted in the trial Court.

4. During the pendency of the case, before learned trial Court, the parties have settled the matter. As per settlement, marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4 has been dissolved by way of ex-parte decree of divorce.

5. On the basis of above, a prayer has been made to allow the present petition.

6. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and the Police has investigated the matter and submitted report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C., before the learned trial Court.

7. Today, the person, who, at one point of time, had levelled the allegations, against the petitioners, i.e. respondent No. 4, appeared and stated, on oath, that she was married to petitioner No. 1 and thereafter, dispute had arisen between them, out of matrimonial discord. Thereafter, according to her, she had lodged FIR against the petitioners, in which, police has conducted the investigation and submitted the report under Section 173(2) of the Cr. P.C., which is pending before the learned trial Court.

8. According to respondent No. 2, she and petitioner No. 1 have parted their ways, by dissolving their marriage. She has further deposed on oath that since the matter has been settled between her and petitioner No. 1, as such, she has no claim whatsoever with regard to past, present and future maintenance, and she is bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise.

9. On the basis of compromise, Annexure P-3, she has categorically stated that she has no objection, in case the FIR, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

10. Similar type of joint statement has also been made by the petitioners, in which, they have also reiterated that they are governed by the terms and conditions of the compromise, Annexure P-3.

11. On the basis of joint statement, made by the petitioners, they have sought relief, as claimed in the petition.

12. Heard.

13. Parties to the present lis, i.e. petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 4 have settled the inter se disputes having been arisen between them, by dissolving their marriage. The compromise is Annexure P-3, according to which the parties have settled all their disputes and bound themselves by the same. As such, continuation of proceedings, before the learned trial Court is nothing, but, the abuse of process of law.

14. When the aggrieved wife, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging the FIR, against her husband (petitioner No. 1), father-in-law (petitioner No. 2), mother-in-law (petitioner No. 3), brother-in-law (petitioner No. 4) and sister-in-law (petitioner No. 5) has settled the matter with the petitioners, that too, by dissolving the marriage with petitioner No. 1, then, chances of success of prosecution case, in this case, are not so bright.

15. Acceptance of the compromise will also save the precious judicial ti