The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings based on a genuine and voluntary compromise between the parties, considering the nature and gravity of the crime, voluntary nature of compromise, and the impact on society.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (Oral) - Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of FIR No.286 dated 22.07.2016, registered under Sections 323, 34, 406, 498-A, 506 IPC, at Police Station Pataudi, District Gurugram and alongwith judgment and orders of conviction dated 12.02.2019 and 13.02.2019 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pataudi, on the basis of compromise dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure P-3).

2. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 i.e the complainant lodged the FIR in question against the petitioners-accused. It was alleged that her marriage took place on 17.02.2016 with Sandeep. Sufficient dowry was given in the marriage. After the marriage, her in-laws started taunting her for not giving good dowry and demanded four wheeler car and Rs.8 lac cash. When the complainant showed her inability to meet their demands, her husband used to beat her up. The complainant told the whole thing to her father, then her father requested the accused persons not to harass his daughter and gave Rs.1,00,000/- to them. When brother of the complainant came to meet her, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law started quarreling with him and threw the complainant out of the house and did not take her back in the matrimonial home despite many efforts made by the father of the complainant. Complaint was made to the Police and on the basis of the same, the FIR was lodged against her husband Sandeep, motherin-law Kanta Devi, sister-in-law Deepshikha and father-in-law Leelaram. The investigation commenced and on completion of the same, the challan was presented. On the conclusion of the trial, accused Deepshika was released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing probation bond in a sum of RS.50,000/- with one surety in like amount accused Sandeep was convicted and sentenced under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC for three years rigorous imprisonment and accused Leela Ram and Kanta Devi were convicted and sentenced under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC for three years of rigorous imprisonment by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pataudi vide its order dated 13.02.2019. The accused-petitioners challenged the order dated 13.02.2019 by filing an appeal before the learned Appellate Court and the same is pending adjudication. During the pendency of the appeal, good sense prevailed and with the intervention of the respectables, the parties entered into a compromise and decided to bury the hatchet. The petitioners approached this Court by way the present petition for quashing of the FIR and consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of the compromise arrived at.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prosecution of the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. He submits that though the petitioners have already been convicted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, however, during the pendency of the appeal before the learned Appellate Court the parties have arrived at a compromise and respondent No.2 does not want to prosecute the petitioners any more. Thus, the FIR and the subsequent proceedings alongwith judgment and conviction orders dated 12.02.2019 and 13.02.2019 passed by the learned SDJM, Pataudi, may kindly be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court titled as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another, (3) RCR 1052; Ramgopal and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021(4) RCR (Criminal) 322; and Sube Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2013(4) RCR (Criminal) 102. He has further submitted that the marriage in question has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce passed in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, whereas, learned State counsel has opposed the same.

5. This Court vide order da