The court may quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes if the parties have reached an amicable settlement.

1. Heard Ms. Aprajita Bansal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Vivek Bhatt, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

2. This petition under S.482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the proceedings of Cri. Case No. 1309 of 2018; (State v. Sankalp Jain and others) arising out of Crime No.350 of 2016 under S.498 - A, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Lucknow pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the son of applicants and opposite party No.2 were entered into wedlock on 30.07.2015 with sufficient dowry. After the marriage, applicant No.2 has kept all the jewellery with herself, which was given to opposite party No.2 in her marriage. She went to U.S.A. with her husband there the son of applicants forced opposite party No.2 for unnatural sex. Apart from that he started torturing her. On complaint of opposite party No.2, applicants did not help her rather they threatened to re - marry of their son. The opposite party No.2 returned India from U.S.A. and further the son of applicants did not sponsor her visa that is why she could not move for U.S.A. again, to live her matrimonial life. The applicants have demanded the additional dowry also, and their son has kept her (O.P. No.2) in desertion.

4. A case was registered by the police under S.498 - A, 323, 504, 506, I.P.C. and 3/4, D.P. Act. After investigation, police has submitted charge sheet dated 12.11.2017 in the aforesaid Sections against the applicant. The cognizance has been taken on 10.01.2018 by Magistrate concerned and the trial of the case is pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant No.1 is father - in - law and applicant No.2 is mother - in - law of opposite party No.2. A matrimonial disputes arose in between husband and wife. Consequently, F.I.R. in question has been lodged against the applicants. Since F.I.R. was lodged against provisions of law and with exaggeration of the fact, hence, applicants have challenged the aforesaid Criminal proceeding in present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants again submitted that during the proceeding of the case, a good sense prevailed in between the parties and they have settled their dispute amicably before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court. The report of Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 08.07.2019 has been fled in connected petition u/S. 482, Cr.P.C. No.3605 of 2018 and the photostat copy of the agreement has been filed in present petition with affidavit dated 06.08.2020. Both the parties have settled their disputes. In accordance with condition No.4 of terms of compromise, the present petition is also covered. In fact, compromise has been taken place between the parties on 08.07.2019 with regard to both the petitions, the present one as well as petition No.3605/2018. Therefore, the prayer to quash the cognizance order is liable to be allowed.

7. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 did not dispute the argument advanced by learned counsel for applicant, rather, he conceded the contention of counsel for applicants and submitted that both the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Now no grievance is left against each other and if, the prayer for quashing cognizance order of the court concerned is allowed on the basis of compromise then in that case he will not have any objection.

8. Basically, a matrimonial dispute arose in between husband and wife. The parties to the litigation have arrived at