The court held that a compromise between parties post-divorce justifies quashing of FIR, emphasizing the need to maintain peace and judicial efficiency.

JUDGMENT :

(Virender Singh, J.)

Petitioner-Ashwani Dogra has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.108 of 2018, dated 14.07.2018, registered with Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P., under Sections 406, 323, 498-A, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and Section 66E of the Information and Technology Act (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Amb, District Una, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise effected between the parties.

3. According to the petitioner, on the statement of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against him.

4. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the charge- sheet, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.

5. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the case, he and respondent No.2, had parted their ways, by dissolving their marriage, by a decree of divorce, dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure P-3), on the basis of mutual consent, as such, the compromise has been effected between the parties.

6. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which are annexed with the petition, as, Annexure P-4.

7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, as well as, proceedings, resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by allowing the petition.

8. When put to notice, the State has filed the status report, disclosing therein the manner, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered and the manner, in which, the police has investigated the matter and submitted the charge-sheet, before the learned trial Court.

9. The person, who, at one point of time, had levelled the allegations against the petitioner, and had lodged the FIR, in question, appeared, before this Court and made a statement, on oath, that due to non- compatibilityof temperament, disputes have arisen between them and she had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioner. Apart from deposing about the factual position, she has also asserted that compromise, Annexure P-4, has been effected between her and the petitioner.

10. In addition to this, she has deposed that her marriage with petitioner, had already been dissolved on 01.06.2023, by a decree of divorce, on mutual consent. She has also stated that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for.

11. Similar type of statement has been made by the petitioner, on oath.

12. Heard.

13. Petitioner and respondent No.2, were married in the year 2015. Later on, compelled by the circumstances, their relations became constraint and due to the said fact, respondent No.2, has lodged, the FIR, in question.

14. As per the stand taken by the parties, since, it was not possible for the petitioner and respondent No.2 to live together as husband and wife, they have decided to part their ways, by obtaining a decree of divorce, from the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Una on 01.06.2023. Thereafter, the matter has been compromised, between the parties. The terms and conditions of the compromise, have been placed on record as Annexure P-4.

15. The criminal machinery, in the present case, has been put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question. Now, as per the stand taken by the petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2, they have compromised the matter, in view of the compromise, Annexure P-4.

16. If, the statement of respondent No.2, is considered, in the light of the compromise, then, this Court is of the view that the chances of success of the prosecution case against the petitione