The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to quash criminal proceedings upon compromise between the parties, especially in cases of personal nature disputes, to protect family well-being and secure the ends of justice.

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

This is a petition preferred by the husband and wife to quash the FIR, bearing No. 261/2015 dated 05th October 2015, lodged by the wife against the husband and consequential criminal case pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim at Gangtok.

2. The brief facts, as narrated by the petitioners, are that the second petitioner was legally married wife of the first petitioner and living together at M.G. Marg, below Hotel Bayul, Gangtok. As stated in the FIR, the first petitioner used to torture, harass and beat the second petitioner regularly. On 4th October 2015 at about 10.30 PM, she was beaten and her neck was throttled which might have led to her death. Further, the first petitioner picked up a kitchen knife and also attempted to stab her. Cognizance of the report was taken and a criminal case, being GR Case No. 109 of 2016, was registered against the first petitioner under Sections 498A/352/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). As required, proper investigation was done before filing the charge-sheet on 27.04.2016. The petitioners have jointly stated that after the said incident, both of them started living peacefully in the same house and nurturing the sole child, a son of 9 years of age. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that keeping in view the peace and betterment of the family and the child, the second petitioner along with the first petitioner have entered into a compromise, which was duly executed on 20th February 2016, giving a quietus to the case in the interest of family and the society. Learned counsel would further contend that the FIR and the consequential criminal case be quashed for the benefit and growth of the family in the society.

3. Supporting the case of the petitioners, learned State counsel would submit that though the charge is serious in nature, but for benefit of the family fabric, the case may be considered for quashment of the FIR as well as the criminal case against the first petitioner pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Examined the pleadings and also the relevant documents appended hereto.

5. Indisputably, the first and second petitioners are lawfully wedded husband and wife. It has also come on record that they are blessed with one son of 9 years of age. The family comprises of husband, wife and the child. It is necessary for the well being of the family fabric that every constituent must make contribution and also compromise in the interest of other family members. There is no dispute that the first petitioner, under the mistaken belief, tried to exercise dominion over the wife, by show of his muscular might. This inexorable act of the first petitioner falls within the ambit of crime. A person who commits a crime against the basic norms of the society, is not entitled to live in the society, and as a retributory and ameliorative measure, he is to be removed from the society and kept in captivity. A fine may also be imposed as punishment to mend his ways and make himself suitable to be a part of the society. If the charges framed against the first petitioner are proved that will entail a punishment. The second petitioner feels that in the interest and well being of the family and the sole child, one more opportunity be given to the first petitioner. If the criminal case filed by the second petitioner is allowed to complete its course, this may lead to the destruction and desecration of the family life. It is noticed that both the petitioners are living happily, thus, it is necessary for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the case under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”).

6. In the case of Manoj Sharma vs. State & Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1, wherein the question involved was as to whether a first information report under Sections 420/468/471/34/120-B IPC deserves to be qua