Compromise between parties in a criminal case can lead to quashing of FIR when both express a desire to resolve disputes amicably, serving the purpose of maintaining societal peace.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 30 of 2019, dated 7.12.2019, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 376, 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Women Police Station, Bilaspur, HP, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that due to some mis-understanding between the petitioner and respondent No.2, FIR in question has been lodged against the petitioner. After registration of the FIR, Police has conducted investigation in the matter and filed charge sheet against the petitioner, which is stated to be pending before the learned trial Court.

3. It is also the case of the parties that now, the matter has been compromised, in pursuance of compromise, Annexure P-3, as the parties are residents of the same village and want to maintain their cordial relations, in future.

4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made.

5. When put to notice, respondents-State has filed status report, disclosing therein, the factual position, about the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.

6. It is the further case of respondents- State that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court.

7. The person, who had put criminal machinery into motion, by making statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police, i.e. respondent No. 4 has appeared in Court today and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, she has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations between her and the petitioner, as they are residents of the same village. The Police has added Section 376 IPC, later on, in this case, however, respondent No. 4 has not levelled allegations of rape, on the petitioner.

8. Lastly, respondent No. 4, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed further with the matter.

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

10. Heard.

11. Complainant/respondent No. 4 has categorically stated, in her statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between the parties, in order to maintain their cordial relations, in future, as they are residents of the same village. She has also stated that she had not levelled the allegations of rape on the petitioner.

12. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-3, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 4, respondent No. 4 does not want to proceed further with the case and has no objection, in case, the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed and the present petition is allowed.

13. Moreover, when, the parties have settled the dispute with regard to FIR in question, then the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3 , should be honoured by this Court, as no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings alive.

14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 4, have buried all their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 4, would certainly amount to ab