The court emphasized that a compromise between parties in a matrimonial dispute can justify quashing criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process and maintain harmony.

JUDGMENT:

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner-Banku Ram has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.51/2024, dated 16.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., under Sections 323, 324, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to bepending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

2. The relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioner and respondents No.2.

3. According to the petitioner, on the statement of husband 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 report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.

5. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the aforesaid case, in order to maintain their future cordial relations and to live peacefully in the matrimonial home, he has compromised the matter with respondent No.2.

6. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed, Annexure P-3.

7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, in question, 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, respondent No.1 has filed the status report, mentioning therein the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case.

9. The person, who, at one point of time, had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging the FIR, in question, by levelling allegations, as mentioned in it, now has settled the matter with the petitioner, vide compromise Annexure P-3.

10. Respondent No.2, while appearing before this Court, has deposed that due to compelling circumstances, she had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioner. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is pending before the learned trial Court.

11. Respondent No.2, has further deposed that now, during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been settled between her and the petitioner. Now, she is residing happily with the petitioner, in the matrimonial home. She has specifically stated that she has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed as prayed for.

12. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath.

13. Heard.

14. The petitioner and respondent No.2, are not stranger, but, husband and wife. However, compelled by the circumstances, respondent No.2, had lodged the FIR, in question, against the petitioner, in which, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the final report, which is pending before the learned trial Court.

15. When, the matter was pending before the learned trial Court, the petitioner has regretted for his act and assured respondent No.2 that such incident will not be repeated in future, by tendering unconditional apology.

Now, the petitioner and respondent No.2, are residing happily in the matrimonial home.

16. Not only this, as per the categoric stand taken by respondent No.2, they have entered into the compromise, the terms and conditions of which have been reduced into writing, vide compromise deed Annexure P-3.

17. The primary purpose of the law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, petitioner and respondent No.2, have now started residing together, in the matrimonial home, after s