The main legal point established in the judgment is that serious offences under Sections 307, 498-A, 34 of IPC, which have a significant impact on society, are non-compoundable and should not be quashed based on a settlement between the parties.

ORDER

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity "CrPC") has been filed for quashing the FIR registered in Crime No. 451/2016 at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 34 of IPC and all other consequential proceedings arising out of it on the basis of compromise.

2. Along with the petition, LA. No. 31872/2021 & LA. No. 31873/2021 have also been filed by the petitioners and complainant-respondents No.2 respectively for compounding the offences on the basis of compromise. The applications are duly signed by both the parties and are supported by affidavits of respective parties.

3. In compliance of order dated 07/01/2022 passed by this Court, the factum of compromise has been verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court, who has recorded statement of complainant/ respondents No.2- Smt. Seema Jadon W/o Shri Dharmpal Singh Jadon as well as petitioners/accused, namely, Dharmpal Singh Jadon, Mahesh Singh Jadon, Smt. Krishna Devi and Smt. Sarita Jadon and has submitted a report that the parties have arrived at compromise voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion. The verification report further states that as per Section 320 of CrPC, the offences under Sections 307, 498-A, 34 of IPC are not compoundable.

4. The facts of the case, in short, are that the marriage of complainant/ respondent No.2 was solemnized on 12/07/2016 with petitioner No.1- Dharmpal Singh Jadon as per Hindu rituals and immediately after marriage, petitioners started exploiting the complainant and demanded a bike as dowry. The complainant informed about the incident to her family members, upon which her father tried to resolve the issue but remain failed. On 12/12/2016 at around 09:00 PM, mother-in-law & sister-in-law with the help of complainant's husband dragged the complainant by making knot in her neck and also brutally beaten her with intention to kill her. Being aggrieved and left with no other option, respondent No.2 lodged the FIR against the petitioners which has been registered as Crime No. 451/2016 at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior, for offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed by the Police and charges have been framed by the Court below.

5. Thereafter, during pendency of trial, by the intervention of respectful members of the society, the petitioners and respondent No.2 have cleared bilateral doubts and respondent No.2 has expressed her desire not to continue with the case against the petitioners. Hence, this petition has been filed for quashing the aforesaid FIR and all other consequential proceedings arising out of it on the basis of compromise.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent No.2/complainant has entered into a compromise with the petitioners and therefore, the present petition has been filed for compounding the offences on the basis of compromise. It is further submitted that once the complainant has decided not to pursue the matter further, then the High Court could have taken a mere pragmatic view of the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh & Ann Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(2014) 6 SCC 466], and order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 20/01/2022 in the case of Chaube Singh and Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others [Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.56226/2021]. On the basis of aforesaid facts of the case and in the light of above cited judgments, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing this petition by quashing the FIR in question and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/ complainant has no objection to the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners in re