ORDER

1. This petition has been filed for invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of FIR / Crime No.5/2021 registered at P.S. Ajay Garh District Panna for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A of IPC read with Section 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners.

2. On 5.8.2022 the parties submitted that there is a possibility of settlement between the parties in M.Cr.C. No.11088/2021, so the matter be referred for mediation. In pursuance to the same, parties appeared before the Mediation Centre, High Court of M.P., Jabalpur, on 28.10.2022 and amicably settled their disputes on the conditions of mediation.

3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage of respondent no.2 Shrishti @ Tanu Lakhera was solemnized with Atul Lakhera as per Hindu customs on 27.2.2019.

4. The respondent No.2 lodged an FIR against the petitioners and his son for the offence punishable under Sections 498A of IPC read with Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed. During pendency of this petition, both the parties requested to refer the matter for mediation.

5. The parties amicably settled their differences by way of mutual settlement in the mediation proceeding conducted on 28.10.2022 and amicably settled their disputes on the conditions of mediation.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties placing reliance on the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others vs. Babita Raghuwanshi and another passed in Criminal Appeal No.447/2013 vide judgment dated 15.03.2013 by the Supreme Court, Jagdish Channa and others vs. State of Haryana and another - AIR 2008 SC 1968, Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab - AIR 2008 SC 1969, Shiji vs. Radhika and another - (2011) 10 SCC 705, Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab- (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and others reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 have submitted that criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes can be quashed by the Court, if the Court is satisfied that the matter has been settled between the parties amicably.

7. It is not in dispute that on the case in hand, subsequent to filing of criminal case under Sections 498A of IPC read with Section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, parties concerned have amicably settled their differences and executed a compromise/settlement and pursuant thereto, entered into compromise before the mediation centre, High Court of M.P., Jabalpur, with a request to take the same on record and to drop the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein. It is also not in dispute that respondent no.2/wife before the Mediation Centre has stated that she has entered into the compromise and did not wish to pursue criminal proceedings against the petitioners and fully supported the contents of the compromise application.

8. In the case of Jitendra Raghuwanshi (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

9. 'Learned counsel for the parties, by drawing our attention to the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 675, submitted that in an identical circumstance, this Court held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 can quash criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes where the dispute is entirely private and the parties are willing to settle their disputes amicably. It is not in dispute that the facts in B.S. Joshi (supra) are identical and the nature of the offence and the question of law involved are almost similar to the one in hand. After considering the law laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and explaining the decisions rendered in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, Surendra Nath Mohanty & Anr. vs. State of Orissa, (1999) 5 SCC 238 and Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr, vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749,