The court may quash FIRs in matrimonial disputes when parties settle amicably, promoting justice and reducing the burden on the judicial system.

JUDGMENT :

Sindhu Sharma, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR No. 16/2020, dated 31.08.2020 under section 498-A IPC registered with Police Station Women Cell, Kathua.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that, respondent No. 2 was married to petitioner No. 5 on 06.10.2017 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies and had been living together since then. The petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 are residing separately from rest of the petitioners in different house. During the subsistence of marriage, respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint with respondent No. 1 registered as FIR No. 16/2020 against the petitioners, under section 498-A IPC.

3. During the pendency of these proceedings, parties have decided to reach an amicably settlement and have entered into a Compromise with each other. They also have mutually decided to dissolve their marriage.

4. In terms of the said compromise, it is submitted that they have settled their differences amicably and respondent No. 2 has submitted that she has no grievance against the petitioners and, as such, does not wish to proceed with the prosecution of the petition. Both the parties are present in Court today, and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Statements of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 have also been recorded. In the statements, they have stated that they have voluntarily and amicably settled the dispute outside the Court and a Compromise Deed has been executed in this regard between them and they have no objection, in case the proceedings in FIR No. 16/2020, dated 31.08.2020 under section 498-A IPC registered with Police Station Women Cell, Kathua.

5. This issue regarding quashing of proceedings arising out of matrimonial dispute on the ground of settlement/compromise is to be encouraged by this Court to put an end to all disputes as held in B.S. Joshi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Yashpal Chaudhrani & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) & Anr. 2019 SCC Online Del 8179.

6. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors. v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr. 2013 (0) SUPREME (SC) 247, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para 12 as under:

“12. In our view, it is the duty of the Courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non-compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.”

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 466, vide which the guidelines were framed for accepting the settlement for quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceeding. Paragraph Nos. 29.3, 29.4 & 29.5 are reproduced below:

29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.

29.4. On the other,